Posted on 04/25/2007 9:03:32 AM PDT by Esther Ruth
Texas soldier who wouldn't serve U.N. mission loses Supreme Court case
By MICHAEL GRACZYK Associated Press Writer © 2007 The Associated Press
HOUSTON — Michael New, a Texas soldier who refused to serve on a United Nations peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia, lost an appeal of his bad-conduct discharge at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
"It's the end of an 11 1/2-year battle," said New's father, Daniel New. "Is there going to be another round? I don't know. We're looking at options."
Michael New, a former Army medic, had argued 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 in 1995.
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 of ethnic fighting.
The justices, without commenting, declined Monday to hear his case.
New was attending classes at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville when word of the high court decision was released, his father said.
"It's not going to affect his lifestyle," Daniel New said, describing his son's desire to "stay out of the press as much as he can."
The Supreme Court rejection was New's second loss before the justices. In 2001, the court refused to take a similar review. New contended that President Clinton should have received congressional approval for the deployment to Yugoslavia.
A seven-member military jury deliberated just 20 minutes before convicting him of disobeying an order and sentenced him to a bad-conduct discharge. New had wanted to be transferred to a new unit or honorably discharged.
"We're at a crossroads," said Daniel New, reached at his home in Bosque County in central Texas. "We don't know if we can sustain another legal battle. The sad thing about it is we were diverted from the real issues of national sovereignty and constitutional questions over to standards of review and due process.
"We were fighting over lawyers' infighting and that's really too bad. The merits never have reached the table in 11 1/2 years."
New joined the Army in 1993 and served in Kuwait. He was stationed in Germany when his infantry unit was assigned to duty in Macedonia, one of six republics of former Yugoslavia, to guard against the spread of unrest from other areas torn by ethnic turmoil because of Yugoslavia's dismemberment.
He refused to wear the insignia and blue beret of the United Nations, saying he would not serve a foreign power. Part of his appeal involved whether U.S. soldiers should be required to wear U.N. apparel.
In his appeal, he questioned the practice of "turning American soldiers over to U.N. command and control — to foreign officers who neither report to nor take orders from the president."
"If you're a pessimist like I am, you might be disappointed but not surprised," Daniel New said. "I've said for 10 years we're going to lose this thing, because there are globalists in power, both in evidence as well as behind the scenes, who do not want an exclusive sovereign national state. And they don't want our military to be exclusive to the United States.
"We're flying in the face of history. We're flying in the face of centralization of power worldwide and one world government in the end. That's a goal. Not everybody agrees with it, of course, but that's where they want to take us."
From yesterday -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822814/posts
Court turns down U.S. soldier who wouldn’t serve U.N. peacekeeping mission
North County Times ^ | April 23, 2007 | AP
Posted on 04/24/2007 2:42:28 PM CDT 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.
“If you’re a pessimist like I am, you might be disappointed but not surprised,” Daniel New said. “I’ve said for 10 years we’re going to lose this thing, because there are globalists in power, both in evidence as well as behind the scenes, who do not want an exclusive sovereign national state. And they don’t want our military to be exclusive to the United States.
“We’re flying in the face of history. We’re flying in the face of centralization of power worldwide and one world government in the end. That’s a goal. Not everybody agrees with it, of course, but that’s where they want to take us.”
“”We’re flying in the face of history. We’re flying in the face of centralization of power worldwide and one world government in the end. That’s a goal.”
Someone is finally getting the overall picture.
This centralization of power is the main reason for open borders and illegal entry into the country. I don’t think that this was ever the intent when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, hence the Constitution has become a hindrance for our politicians. America may survive, but not as America.
As much as I sympathize with the guy (I wouldn’t want to fight for the UN either), he was wrong.
Soldiers don’t get to choose which battles they’ll join. That’s up to the President. He signed up, and voluntarily agreed to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. He doesn’t have to like the orders, but he must follow them.
We cannot simultaneously condemn the soldiers who refuse to fight in Iraq and applaud Michael New for doing the exact same thing.
Are we no longer a sovereign nation?
Uhm...he did not have a Supreme Court case. They refused to even hear it. He lost his case a long time ago.
Could he possibly mean like President Bush got congressional approval for the deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq?
Under who’s flag should he fight and wear on his uniform?
His allegiance is to the United States of America. He is not the property of the UN.
He should serve as his Commander in Chief orders him to. If he doesn’t like those orders, he has the option of not re-enlisting.
It is not up to individual soldiers to decide the worthiness of their mission. Not in Iraq, and not in Yugoslavia.
"Just following orders" didn't cut it 60 years ago and doesn't cut it now. Orders have to be Constitutional, legal, and moral. It is not clear to me that being ordered to fight under the flag of another is any of the above.
This soldier was a hero to many, but not to me.
It was clear enough to the military command at the time, and it is certainly clear to the Supreme Court now.
Equating this with Hitler doesn't exactly enhance your credibility.
It’s not the same thing....as not fighting in Iraq. Asking an American to put a patch of the UN on the uniform is wrong.
You are saying essentially that the military command never, ever, makes a mistake.
and it is certainly clear to the Supreme Court now.
Not true, they receive many times more cases than they can possibly hear and decide. They have to be selective. Denial of cert in no way means they affirm the lower decisions.
Equating this with Hitler doesn't exactly enhance your credibility.
LOL! That's a mighty Straw Man you've got going there, speaking of credibility destroyers.
On the contrary, those in Iraq have American Flags on their uniforms, which is not "exactly" what New was ordered to wear.
You are saying essentially that the military command never, ever, makes a mistake.
Of course not. I'm saying that it isn't up to the soldiers to decide when they have.
Short of a patently illegal order (which this wasn't even close to, or SCOTUS wouldn't have refused to hear his appeal), a soldier doesn't get a veto.
"Equating this with Hitler doesn't exactly enhance your credibility."
LOL! That's a mighty Straw Man you've got going there, speaking of credibility destroyers.
Oh, I'm sorry, were you referencing some other famous association with the term when you posted '"Just following orders" didn't cut it 60 years ago and doesn't cut it now.'?
Would you like to trade disingenuity for Godwin's Law?
Actually, that is exactly what it means.
It wasn't Hitler who said it, it was the underlings charged in the Nuremburg trials. So the comparison wasn't to the former.
I followed this case quite closely when it first appeared. It looks like a review of the facts of the case are in order. The following appeared in a homeschooling publication May/June 1997:
"[Michael] Farris continued, 'The Constitution and laws of this country make it clear that the President cannot unilaterally assign soldiers to fight under a foreign commander AND in foreign uniforms.' ...New pointed to constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions which prohibit the Army from allowing US soldiers to be assigned to the UN for military purposes with the specific approval of Congress. 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 consent of Congress--on the Battle Dress Uniforn (BDU). New was court martialed for his refusal to wear the UN insignia and badges on his BDU."
It would have been enlightening to see what SCOTUS had to say about unilateral Presidential actions which violate congressional prerogatives, but SCOTUS remained "silent", expressing no binding view on the matter in writing, but rather refusing to hear the case. Important difference.
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.