ARMY SPECIALIST MICHAEL NEW SEEKS SUPREME COURT REVIEW

www.mikenew.com ^ | 9/10/01

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Can an American soldier be forced to serve a foreign power?

That's what we're going to find out!

American sovereignty hangs in the balance.

(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 Newís right to his day in court ñ to be heard on his claims that the order to don the U.N. uniform pursuant to President Clintonís 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, ìa radical departure from our political, legal and military tradition.î  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 Clintonís deployment of American soldiers to Macedonia under U.N. command and control was lawful.  So far, Army lawyers have successfully argued that Newís claim that the Macedonian deployment was both contrary to statute and the U.S. Constitution is a ìpolitical question,î which the military courts have no power to resolve.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, New calls this ruling ìindefensible.î  ìAt the very heart of the constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of life, liberty and property except by Due Process of Law,î Newís petition states, ìis the rule of law, not politics.î  Quoting from a 1994 opinion written by Justice Sandra Day OíConnor, New reminds the Supreme Court that, ìone of the hallmarks of due process in our adversary system is the defendantís ability to meet the Stateís case against him,î 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.

ìThe bottom line is this,î says Michael New.  ìAll I want is my day in court.  The Army has retreated from every courtroom weíve been in, but in the end, theyíre 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.  Iím not letting them off the hook without a fight, because it means too much to the sovereignty of our country.î

Press Release for Spc. Michael New

10 September 2001

www.MikeNew.com/

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

The AP news wires did not pick up on this important story.

I don't know what is sadder the media don't care or that such a thing could even happen.

[Diogenesis]

If the Supreme Court does not take his case (likely based upon simple statistics),

perhaps he can take the case to the World Court (/sarcasm)

. . . . . and decisively lose.

It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court takes so few cases, and thus denies so many people justice.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

I think they will hear his case. He has waited long enough.

[B4Ranch]

Link to first posting

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Michael New Legal Defense Fund

Contact:    Herbert W. Titus,  General Counsel      757-467-0616

Daniel D. New,  Project Manager          254-796-2173

[LSJohn]

"convicted of disobeying an unlawful order"

Is this a typo? Has to be, right?

[tbeatty]

I hope he wins. I don't think we should be putting our soldiers under U.N. command but I think he's on shaky legal ground. I don't think the Court will treat the U.N. any different than any other ALLY (if you can call them that). We often put divisions under allied commanders (for instance, in WWII in the Battle of the Bulge, American divisions cut off from the rest of the American Army were put under the command of the British. NATO has a chain of command that may not include Americans (bombing of Bosnia had non-american command elements). I don't think he had to take an oath, just put on a uniform. If he had to take an oath to the U.N., I think this changes everything. His american commander ordered him to wear a particular patch and it's going to be hard for him to argue that this order was unlawful. I don't think he would ever have been directly under the command of the U.N. so it's going to bve tough for him.

I admire his courage and I hope he wins but don't get your hopes up to high. Good luck, michael new.