President Bush: "No World Court" Spc. New Again: "No World Army"

May 8, '02

WASHINGTON,D.C. - Former Army Specialist Michael New supports President Bush's decision to reject any U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court because of its threat to American soldiers and attack on American sovereignty. New, who in 1996 was court-martialed and kicked out of the Army for refusing to wear a United Nations uniform, filed suit May 8th, against the Pentagon and the Army at Federal District Court in Washington. New will carry on his six year fight to win back his good military record.

Spc. New contends his own case is wrapped up in the identical issues and questions facing President Bush who is at odds with the purpose and functions of the International Criminal Court. Early media reports say Bush is concerned that an International Criminal Court would expose "American soldiers and officials overseas to capricious and mischievous prosecutions." As a result, the United States will not recognize the court's jurisdiction; it will not submit to any of its orders; and it declares the signing of any document by the Clinton administration endorsing such a court as not being valid.

"My client has been fighting his case all along to protect American sovereignty. We consider President Bush's recent action involving the ICC shows that he too is concerned for our nation's sovereignty," said Herbert W. Titus, one of four attorneys representing New.

In 1995, New's Army battalion was stationed in Germany with the 3rd Infantry Division. Just before being deployed to Macedonia, the American soldiers were ordered to remove any U.S. flag patches from their uniforms, take off their U.S. Army caps and replace them with blue caps of the United Nations. They were then told to immediately begin following orders from a Finnish General.

When New challenged the legality of those orders, he was told their legal basis stemmed from an executive order issued by then-President Bill Clinton. When New requested to see the executive order, he was told it was classified and not available for viewing -- not to him and not even to the United States Congress, which was also denied permission to read Presidential Decision Directive #25.

In an extraordinary turn of events, the judge at the court-martial in Germany refused to allow the jury to see any of the evidence which New's attorney claimed would prove conclusively the deployment and U.N. uniforms were illegal. Without evidence to consider, the military "panel" took only a few minutes to decide that New had disobeyed an order was thereby convicted. He received a Bad Conduct Discharge.

The evidence for Spec. New's refusal to disobey a direct order has never been allowed to be examined in a court of law. Six years later he is still waiting for a "speedy trial," to clear his name as an honorable American soldier who voluntarily served his country, but refused to follow an illegal order.

President Bush has not yet commented on Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive #25, which many in Congress see as a blatant abuse of power. But Bush's recent actions toward the ICC indicate his administration has become increasingly concerned about where the ICC will go in assuming authority that transcends national sovereignty. Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale professor and former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, was quoted in the New York Times saying, "This is an international Marbury versus Madison moment."

According to noted habeas corpus expert, J.Dale Robertson, "The question of the ICC being a Marbury versus Madison moment may well be true---but there is no question that Spec. Mike New's case is a 'Dred Scott moment' in American liberty."

U.S. soldiers, who could become subjects of any International Criminal Court, already serve under United Nations authority in more than 40 countries, some of them in actual U.N. uniforms and others under multinational agreements and regional arrangements. "Most Americans do not realize that a United Nations commander pledges to follow the orders of the U.N., even above the orders of his own country. This pledge affects his soldiers too," said Daniel New, father of Michael New.

#######

CONTACT:
Daniel New
Project Manager
Michael New Legal Defense
254-796-2173
www.mikenew.com/
Michael New is not available for interviews while case is in litigation.

For the "public version" of PDD 25, go to: www.mikenew.com/pdd25.html
For more on J. Dale Robertson, go to: www.habeascorpus.net/

Click here to read the Press Release for Michael's Attorney

In all the pictures I've seen of UN forces, I can't remember any NCO's wearing their flag patches. You sure?

Yep. Let me put it like this:

This is me, shortly before leaving for Macedonia for a 6 month stint as part of Operation Able Sentry. You will note the flag on my left shoulder. That was the correct uniform. Also note that when a US soldier is in a normal garrison environment (like Spc New was) you do NOT normally have a flag on your uniform. Your only identifier would be your unit patch (left shoulder) and if you had been in combat that unit's patch (right shoulder). When an American soldier is deployed as part of a multi national force- that's when the flag is put on the uniform. It's so soldiers and citizenry from other countries can identify you. In garrison, there's no point to it being there- you're all in the same army.

Let me take a moment to point out a couple of other details. We did, as you can see, add the UN patch to the right shoulder. This and the beret or baseball cap were the only UN identifiers we wore. This is also for the locals. They were supposed to be able to recognize us as UN from far away (and presumedly not shoot at us ;-) ). But this was the only alteration- and actually it was not so much an alteration as an addition (excepting the headgear).

Keep in mind, your chain of command can order you to wear anything they please. We were ordered once by a Colonel to make funny hats and go on a battalion run like that. Guys wore Donald Duck hats. Some wore stockings with oranges shoved under them. One guy wore a pizza box. But uniform is up to your chain of command. The OPFOR in Hohenfels wear distinctively different uniforms as well. Your chain of command could also order you to wear civvies for example.

I was in the same Brigade as SPC New. Right across town. My unit went to Macedonia before his.

I'm trying to remember exactly how this went down. Understand that to us across town, this wasn't a big deal. We knew a lot of media were over at Conn barracks and rumor had it that some kid was afraid to go to Macedonia. Not trying to cast any bad juju New's way- just telling you how it was at the time on the ground. It was one of those scuttlebutt things. It wasn't at the top of our priority list- we didn't sit around and roll our eyes at each new thing Clinton had us doing. New, if my memory is correct, was ordered to show up for a formation wearing the beret and with the UN patch correctly sewn on his uniform. He did not do so.

We and they were given ample time before hand to have these items sewn on (it's free) and usually what'll happen your platoon will have a "show down" formation where your platoon seargent can make sure that patch is there before the "official formation". Before that, a good squad leader would have checked your uniform (the day before for example). So, his chain of command would've known before the official formation that he was planning on not complying with that order and in my recollection- that's the way it was. He might've sewn the American flag on though. That's speculation on my part BUT- I speculate that as a way to explain why he might've been ordered to remove an American flag. If he refused to join his unit's mission he would've been out of uniform if he HAD the US flag on his BDUs- you follow? So had he only put the flag on they would've rightly ordered him to take it off. Again, that's speculation but that's the only way I can explain what's in this article.

I understand where New was coming from. But understand also, he did disobey a direct order. I chose to obey that order as did everyone else with him being the exception. The reason we did, is because we swore an oath to do so. It was not up to us to decide the minute details of legality or what the Founders intended. However unfair it might seem- and I know it really makes Freepers mad because Clinton was the one that gave the order- that's the bottom line.

New had his court martial. That's not a public affair. He has made appeals and has been rejected. I assume he is still in the appeals process- but last I heard the Supreme Court refused to hear it. On questions of legality and constitutional law in our country, the Supreme Court is the final authority. They have spoken on the subject- even if it's just deciding not to hear it. This is the same court that decided in our favor after the elections. The left didn't accept that result and I don't reckon New and a lot of people here will ever accept their decision regarding this. People call him a patriot for what he did, and that may be. But what does that make me and the soldiers that went to Macedonia and did their jobs, traitors? One guy on this board called us dangerous sheep. Hey, to each his own, but I am no less American, no less a patriot than New. A lot of good men and women who would have followed that order are out there laying it on the line right now. I can tell you for a fact that they are neither cowards nor traitors.

I understand New's point, but:

"...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..."

That's the oath of enlistment New took. It says you'll defend the Constitution against enemies. Who are the enemies? Whoever your commander tells you they are; it's not up to you to decide. The "true faith" part gives him some wiggle room, but true faith can be variously defined, it's a fuzzy term. A narrowly defined item is when it says you'll obey the orders of the President and the orders of officers appointed over you. Clinton signed the order, covering one part of the oath. And even if it was a Nepalese Sherpa lieutenant, if he's appointed over you, you swore to obey his orders.

I didn't want to go to the Gulf, knowing it was all about protecting Bush's oil interests and supporting a bunch of people who would under normal circumstances never allow me into their countries. But I was ordered and went, no questions asked.

I signed up, I swore an oath, end of story.

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.