Posted on 09/10/2001 6:35:54 PM PDT by B4Ranch
ARMY SPECIALIST MICHAEL NEW SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW
(Washington, D.C.) – Attorneys for Army Specialist Michael New submitted a petition to the Supreme Court today, requesting that they hear his case and overrule the lower military courts. Michael New is the American soldier who refused to wear a United Nations uniform in 1995, was court-martialed and subsequently convicted of disobeying an unlawful order.
At the heart of his appeal is New’s right to his day in court – to be heard on his claims that the order to don the U.N. uniform pursuant to President Clinton’s deployment of American soldiers under U.N. command was contrary to statutory law, to Army regulations, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and to the United States Constitution.
In his petition for a writ of certiorari, New is asking the High Court to overrule the judgments of three military courts which have denied him the right to present any evidence of the unlawfulness of the order to a military jury.
At his court-martial in January, 1996, the military judge ruled before trial that the order to wear the U.N. uniform was lawful, and told the jury that they would not be allowed to see evidence to the contrary. Two of the judges on the highest military appellate court found this pre-trial ruling, “a radical departure from our political, legal and military tradition.” To date, the Army has never had to prove its case by sworn testimony subject to cross-examination that President Clinton had lawful authority to put New in a U.N. uniform.
In fact, the Army has never been required to prove that President Clinton’s deployment of American soldiers to Macedonia under U.N. command and control was lawful. So far, Army lawyers have successfully argued that New’s claim that the Macedonian deployment was both contrary to statute and the U.S. Constitution is a “political question,” which the military courts have no power to resolve.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, New calls this ruling “indefensible.” “At the very heart of the constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of life, liberty and property except by Due Process of Law,” New’s petition states, “is the rule of law, not politics.” Quoting from a 1994 opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, New reminds the Supreme Court that, “one of the hallmarks of due process in our adversary system is the defendant’s ability to meet the State’s case against him,” a right specifically denied in this case.
Under Supreme Court rules, if four justices agree, the petition for a review of the case will be granted. New and his attorneys will then have their first opportunity to argue the case on the merits before judges who are not part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government.
“The bottom line is this,” says Michael New. “All I want is my day in court. The Army has retreated from every courtroom we’ve been in, but in the end, they’re going to have to answer the questions. And the most important one is whether our own government really has the right to force us to serve under a foreign power against our will. I’m not letting them off the hook without a fight, because it means too much to the sovereignty of our country.”
Press Release for Spc. Michael New
Go man go!
Hopefully, the Justices won't be able to resist. We shall see, of course, as always.
My how interesting. All I ever heard from the shills is that New never had a case, the law was on the military's side, New was beaten soundly, New is a lawbreaker, blah, blah blah.... Now I see there hasn't even been a real trial yet, one where both sides argue the evidence. Seems like nothing but judicial obstruction so far. I hope the high court will take this one.
Surely this is a typo, isn'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.