By the way, instead of blue it should be red, the communist color. At least it would be more honest.
This guys should have been the first pardon. There isn’t a damn thing wrong with refusing to serve an organization that doesn’t report to the US Constitution.
I have mixed emotions on this. I can sympathize with him. Make your reservations known and do your duty. Bush should pardon him and grant an honorable discharge after an appropriate time.
Michael New is right and the courts are wrong. If I were President, I would restore New’s status and change hsi discharge to honorable. I would order that the use of UN insignia be ended.
Tehre is NO leagal basis for putting the UN logo on US military uniforms.
How old is New? Is he 35 yeat? Maybe he could run for President. :)
I don’t lke the idea of a soldier refusing to do his duty but in this case I can’t really call this his duty.
Think the left will rally to this guy’s cause?
I don’t think so either.
Bush should pardon him.
What part of this didn't he understand?
As much as I despise the UN, if your commander orders you to join a multinational force, I don't think you have the right to refuse that order as a member of the military.
He should have done his best to serve with honor. If that put him at odds with his commanders while performing his duties, then he should have reported the situation up the chain of command.
I however have very little information on which to base my opinions, so it is quite possible that the circumstances justified his actions.
(2) The US Congress, as it is authorized to do by the Constitution, signed the Charter of the United Nations - a treaty which gave the US certain privileges and certain responsibilities as a party to the Charter.
(3) One of the responsibilities the US has under the Charter is to supply peacekeepers in certain contexts.
(4) The Commander-In-Chief is authorized by Congress to assign members of the US military to fulfill those treaty obligations.
(5) Michael New was selected.
(6) Michael New was insubordinate and violated his Constitutional oath.
(6) He is lucky he is not in prison.
” ...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...”
~~~~~
From the FAQ, Leatherneck magazine...
~~~~~
What are the oaths of enlistment and oaths for officers?
Enlisted: I (state your name) 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 the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Officer: (state your name) 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
The UN has no loyalty or concern for the soldiers forced to serve under them.
A while back a Canadian military doctor was shot in Haiti. Pakistani troops refused to take him to a hospital, instead taking pictures of him as he died.
On the Israel / Lebanon border a Canadian soldier serving the UN screamed to everyone that would listen, that the islamderthals were using them for cover. The UN refused to extract him then screamed when he was killed.
UN vehicles have repeatedly been filmed transporting terrorists in the mideast.
TRAITOROUS GLOBALISTS.
GRRRR.
New's case seem strong to me. He pointed to "constitutional, statutory and regulatory provisions which prohibited the Army from allowing US soldiers to be assigned to the UN for military purposes without the specific approvial of Congress. (Clinton did this unilaterally).
He also pointed to numerous legal provisions which prohibit the display of medals or badges from other governments--including international organizations--on Army uniforms without the consent of Congress. One regulation prohibits all foreign insignia--even with the consent of Congress--on the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU). New was court-maritaled for his refusal to wear the UN insignia and badges on his BDU!"
He chose to honor his oath. It's dispointing to see him not exonorated. This is what happens when you homeschool your children--they don't go along just to get along. It's hard to assemble a freedom-destroying standing army if the participants refuse to violate their oaths.
(From an old Homeschool Court Reporter article, May/June 1997)
My constitutional law professor represented New in some of the previous cases over this some years back.
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)