Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/18/2004 2:32:53 PM EST
What happened?

On October 10, 1995, the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd infantry Division of the U.S. Army came to attention at 0900 in Schweinfurt, Germany. All but one of the 550 soldiers were wearing a sky-blue baseball-style cap with a United Nations insignia on the front. One was wearing the olive-drab flat cap that is authorized to be worn with the Battle Dress Uniform. With this simple act of disobeying a direct order, Spc. 4 Michael New set the stage for a legal battle that has profound implications for the future of American soldiers into service of the United Nations without the constitutional permission of Congress.

Below is an accounting of the case of USA vs. Michael G. New to date.

January 1993
William Jefferson Clinton is sworn in as the 42nd President of the United States of America.

February of 1993
Michael enlisted in the US Army. Michael took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. His Army Recruiter, in Conroe, Texas, never mentioned UN command, foreign officers, or wearing the UN uniform; instead he was told he was signing up for the US military.

3 May 1994
President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), a policy directive outlining the administration's position on reforming multilateral peace operations. Also see "Command" versus "Operational Control": A Critical Review of PDD-25.

July 1995
Michael is assigned to Germany, 3rd Infantry Division. Company A is informed that they will be going to Macedonia as part of a "peacekeeping" mission.

21 August 1995
Michael is informed that his unit will be required to wear a blue UN helmet of beret and a UN armband or patch. Michael was told the order to wear the UN uniform was lawful because,"The President says so, therefore it is." But nobody provided a legitimate, legal or rational basis for the order. Eventually, a battalion briefing about the deployment offered the justification that, "We wear the U.N. uniform because it looks fabulous."

22 August 1995
Michael's father, Daniel New, sends a message about Michael to a friend (me) via a local electronic bulletin board (The Justice Advocate BBS cir.,1993 - 1997). Then the friend (me again) sends it out over the internet . The replies to that message haven't stopped.

29, 30 August 1995
Michael contacts attorney Col. Ronald Ray in Crestwood, Kentucky.

31 August - 1 September 1995
Congressmen begin hearing from constituents, and call Department of Defense for explanation. DOD releases information paper denying any charges against Michael New. (No order had been issued yet, so no order had yet been disobeyed.)

5 September 1995
Michael receives over 1000 pieces of mail in Germany from supportive American citizens.

18 September 1995
Michael sends a letter to his chain of command explaining his stand and requesting further direction.

2 October 1995
Unusual battalion briefing given on the "legal basis of uniform." No legal basis is presented. The only explanation provided is "Precedent ...," and "...because they look fabulous."

10 October 1995
"In about two months' time," Michael recalled,"no one gave me an answer and so, on October 10, the day we were supposed to be in formation in our U.N. uniforms, I showed up in my regulation U.S. Army uniform." However, some 549 U.S. Army soldiers did show up in formation, wearing a United Nations emblem on their baby-blue caps and U.N. patches on their right shoulders! Michael was immediately removed from the parade ground, where he was informed that he would be facing a court-martial. He was read his rights. And this began the chain of events that continues sending shock waves around the country and the world.

After Michael was removed from the formation, the remaining U.S. soldiers came to attention and saluted General Jehu Engstrom, of Finland, their new commanding officer for the next six months. General Engstrom, like other U.N. officers, had taken a pledge of allegiance to the U.N.

17 October 1995
Col. Eaton recommends court-martial and passes the case to Gen. Montgomery Meigs. Ten Special Forces senior sergeants at Ft. Bragg send a letter to the DOD and Senator Helms supporting Michael's stand.

13 December 1995
Michael has a Motions hearing in Warzburg, Germany. See Motion to Dismiss: Unauthorized Alteration in Uniform, Motion to Dismiss: Unlawful Deployment and Motion to Dismiss: Breach of Contract

15 January 1996
LTC. Gary Jewell renders highly irregular preliminary judgement declaring the order lawful. The defense is restricted to arguing the "obedience" issue only, effectively preventing any defense of the real issue.

18 - 24 January 1996
Court-martial Panel of seven, including three officers, return "guilty" verdict on charge of disobedience, but deny the Army its request for a prison term and Dishonorable Discharge. Michael is awarded a "Bad Conduct" Discharge instead.See Stipulation of Fact

11 July 1996
Gen. Meigs signs off on Michael's court-martial, authorizing the discharge and freeing Michael to return home.

28 July 1996
Michael speaks to a crowd of supporters at the homecoming rally in Conroe, Texas given in his honor.

25 September 1997
U.S. Representative Helen Chenoweth submitted the following concurrent resolution (H.Con.Res. 158) condemning the deployment of United States military personnel in the service of the United Nations in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Argued 26 September 1997 Decided 25 November 1997
Opinion from the U.S. DC Circuit Court of Appeals

3 March 1998
National Citizens Legal Network files a AMICUS CURIAE in support of Michael New with the United States Court of Appeals

6 March 1998
Reply Brief to UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

28 March 1998
Army Court of Criminal Appeals hears oral arguments from Michael's attorney, retired Army Col. Hank Hamilton.

As of 23 January 1999
9 months of silence. No denial, no phone calls, no questions, nothing!

Justice delayed is justice denied.

28 April 1999
11 months to the day the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) affirms Michael's court martial and the conviction stands. The ACCA issues a 28 page opinion.

Daniel New issues press release.

4 Feb 2000
LTC Henry Hamilton, AUS (Ret.) brief to the CAAF

15 June 2000
Rep. Chenoweth introduces Citizen Soldier Protection Act of 2000

25 January 2001
After a election filled with controversy George W. Bush is declared 43rd President

4 February 2001
The one year anniversary since the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) heard oral arguments on a single and simple question regarding the case of Army Spc. Michael New. The question before the court is a profound one, but not a difficult one. "Is a defendant in a military court entitled to all the elements of a defense?" In other words, was Michael New entitled to introduce evidence in defense of his own contention that the order to wear a United Nations uniform was illegal?

24 May 2001
LTC. Henry Hamilton, AUS (Ret.) files Appelant's Motion for a Decision by the Court

13 June 2001
After 495 days of "deliberations" the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forced (CAAF) renders as decision reaffirming the Court of Criminal Appeals. Complete opinion here. Daniel New issues a statement.

9 October 2001
The Supreme Court declines to look at his case. See our Press Release here.

Citizen Soldier Protection Act of 2001

18 May 2002
Michael New Returns to Court, Seeks to Overturn Court-Martial Conviction:
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 2:45:23 PM EST
Its too bad a true american is treated as such. The 500 odd soldiers that wore the UN uniform should be court martialed.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 2:52:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By poink:
With this simple act of disobeying a direct order, Spc. 4 Michael New set the stage for a legal battle that has profound implications for the future of American soldiers into service of the United Nations without the constitutional permission of Congress.




No such rank as Specialist 4 any longer.



The rank is called "Specialist." No 4, 5, or 6 anymore.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 2:54:23 PM EST
it's a shame the Citizen Soldier Protection Act never got anywhere, even though it was introduce in 2000, 2001, and 2002. you would think with a republican controlled house, a republican controlled senate, and a republican in the white house, something as important as this could be passed.

this is such absolute and total bullshit.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 2:59:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By napalm:

Originally Posted By poink:
With this simple act of disobeying a direct order, Spc. 4 Michael New set the stage for a legal battle that has profound implications for the future of American soldiers into service of the United Nations without the constitutional permission of Congress.




No such rank as Specialist 4 any longer.



The rank is called "Specialist." No 4, 5, or 6 anymore.



I served during that era. It wasn't uncommon to refer to them as spec-4's.

Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:10:01 PM EST
this is sad. i thought more people would care about US soldiers being pimped out and forced to pledge allegiance to the fucking UN...
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:13:36 PM EST
Shitbag. Should have done prison time.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:16:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By natez:
Shitbag. Should have done prison time.



i hope you are kidding me.

because he refused to wear the UN uniform and pledge allegiance to the UN?

have you served?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:19:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By poink:
have you served?

Please explain what the hell that has to do with having a strong opinion (in either way) regarding the Military?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:21:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 3:21:59 PM EST by poink]

Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By poink:
have you served?

Please explain what the hell that has to do with having a strong opinion (in either way) regarding the Military?



i want to see if his oath differed from the one i and millions others took.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:34:36 PM EST
Send it to O'reilly at Fox or somebody that will find out.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:36:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By poink:


25 January 2001
After a election filled with controversy George W. Bush is declared 43rd President




You lost me here. This is right out of the DemonRats' playbook. He wasn't "declared" president. SCOTUS ordered that the recounts be stopped because no authority to endlessly recount the same votes existed. Florida had already certified the votes, which placed Bush as the winner by 537 votes.

Nice try.

As to the rest...whatever.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:40:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By poink:


25 January 2001
After a election filled with controversy George W. Bush is declared 43rd President




You lost me here. This is right out of the DemonRats' playbook. He wasn't "declared" president. SCOTUS ordered that the recounts be stopped because no authority to endlessly recount the same votes existed. Florida had already certified the votes, which placed Bush as the winner by 537 votes.

Nice try.

As to the rest...whatever.



you're right, justice should be denied because he doesnt share the same political opinion as you or i.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:44:57 PM EST
I believe the oath we took included this line about following the orders of the officers appointed over me and the President of the United States. Not the orders he happens to agree with. He could have ordered him to show up wearing his army-issued propeller hat and Marvin the Martian fuzzy slippers. I don't remember anything about the whole formation raising their right hands and swearing allegiance to the UN over the US. US troops have been under the command of foreign officers before, and will be again.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:48:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:50:08 PM EST
Does it bother you to have US troops under foriegn commanders?

I shiver at the thought of being put under a foriegn commander.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:56:08 PM EST
read the defense written by Col Robert Ray and see if that changes your mind.

http://www.mikenew.com/ray_speech.html
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:56:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By poink:

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By poink:


25 January 2001
After a election filled with controversy George W. Bush is declared 43rd President




You lost me here. This is right out of the DemonRats' playbook. He wasn't "declared" president. SCOTUS ordered that the recounts be stopped because no authority to endlessly recount the same votes existed. Florida had already certified the votes, which placed Bush as the winner by 537 votes.

Nice try.

As to the rest...whatever.



you're right, justice should be denied because he doesnt share the same political opinion as you or i.



Negative. I am just pointing out that the author of this listing of events needs to not spin the truth as to how GWB became president. As to the UN aspect, I believe they should be impolitely asked to leave New York immediately, and we should withdraw from this sham organization run by piss ant third worlders who hate us.

In my opinion, many folks will choose to stop reading right where I did due to this spin job about GWB.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:59:28 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:59:41 PM EST
What exactly is a "UN" uniform?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:09:58 PM EST
The oath we took said that we would follow the LAWFUL orders of the officiers appointed over me etc...
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:11:39 PM EST
well, i guess the soldier's creed needs 'updating' then.

I am a United Nation's Soldier.
I am a child abuser and a member of a corrupt geo-political organization.
I serve the corrupt leadership of the United Nations and have no values.

I will always place France and Germany first.
I will never accept what is right.
I will never quit being corrupt.
I will never leave a fallen tyrant.

I am undisciplined, physically and mentally weak, untrained and unproficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my stolen arms, my equipment and myself at the expense of others.
I am a novice and I am unprofessional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of socialism, communism, and tyrannical governments in close combat.
I am a guardian of communism and the marxist way of life.
I am a United Nations Soldier.

it is really sad that anyone would support or attempt to justify american soldiers being pimped out like this to the UN of all people.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:16:48 PM EST
honestly, would any of you who are still 'in' want to be serving side-by-side with these people?

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=276213
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:18:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By STLRN:
What exactly is a "UN" uniform?



Your own uniform + baby blue UN shit. Most notably headgear.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:24:16 PM EST
Well you and SPC new are under the incorrect impression that he would have been under and control of "UN" officers. His Battalion CO, in fact company commander and anyone else could also, can refuse orders of the senior UN officer present, which happens all the time when units are assigned to UN duty.

Remember what happen in Somalia, we had to get the Pakistanis and Malays to agree to use their armor, although they were under UN "control" and the senior officer on hand was US, they still had to agree to it, there was no ordering involved.

I am sorry but you hitched your horse to basically a barracks lawyer. who would attempt anything to get out doing what he volunteered to do.

Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:25:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By jwr6:

Originally Posted By STLRN:
What exactly is a "UN" uniform?



Your own uniform + baby blue UN shit. Most notably headgear.



So any infantry badge and infantry forage would qualify than? They are "baby blue" after all. Matter of fact the ribbon in the Medal of Honor is that color too isn't it?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:42:34 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:47:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By STLRN:
Well you and SPC new are under the incorrect impression that he would have been under and control of "UN" officers. His Battalion CO, in fact company commander and anyone else could also, can refuse orders of the senior UN officer present, which happens all the time when units are assigned to UN duty.

Remember what happen in Somalia, we had to get the Pakistanis and Malays to agree to use their armor, although they were under UN "control" and the senior officer on hand was US, they still had to agree to it, there was no ordering involved.

I am sorry but you hitched your horse to basically a barracks lawyer. who would attempt anything to get out doing what he volunteered to do.





I believe that what has been happening is that we are seeing a slow slippage into control by a foreign power of our troops on the ground. As such, especially since we have seen the reliability of those whom Klinton and his cronies would give control to, we have a responsibility to prevent the subjugation of control brought about, however slowly, by the arm twisting of US soldiers into subservience to the powder-puff blue troopers.

Is he entirely correct? No.

But someone had to take a stand and it certainly was not going to be any of the officers whose careers would be sunk for doing such a thing. SPC New could take a chance because he had little to lose. His career had only just begun and he would have plenty of time left to begin again in a civilian career. The field grade officers who could really make a difference in such a situation had to be entirely too beholden to Klinton to remain in the upper echelons (look at Wesley Clark . . . Monicas lips were not the only ones on the Presidential cock).
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:55:05 PM EST
I don't think we should assign troops to UN duty, however that is a NMCA level decision and not the prevue of a LtCol, Maj, Capt or SPC for that matter. And since this is an all volunteer military and we have been assigned troops to UN duties for over 50 years. No one says you have to join. As long as your not ordered to rape, murder, etc than you have an obligation to either obey those legal orders, willing to take the consequences when the court says you disobeyed them or not enlist/reenlist/accept your commission.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:56:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 4:57:54 PM EST by Palo_Duro]

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:

Originally Posted By STLRN:
Well you and SPC new are under the incorrect impression that he would have been under and control of "UN" officers. His Battalion CO, in fact company commander and anyone else could also, can refuse orders of the senior UN officer present, which happens all the time when units are assigned to UN duty.

Remember what happen in Somalia, we had to get the Pakistanis and Malays to agree to use their armor, although they were under UN "control" and the senior officer on hand was US, they still had to agree to it, there was no ordering involved.

I am sorry but you hitched your horse to basically a barracks lawyer. who would attempt anything to get out doing what he volunteered to do.






I believe that what has been happening is that we are seeing a slow slippage into control by a foreign power of our troops on the ground. As such, especially since we have seen the reliability of those whom Klinton and his cronies would give control to, we have a responsibility to prevent the subjugation of control brought about, however slowly, by the arm twisting of US soldiers into subservience to the powder-puff blue troopers.

Is he entirely correct? No.

But someone had to take a stand and it certainly was not going to be any of the officers whose careers would be sunk for doing such a thing. SPC New could take a chance because he had little to lose. His career had only just begun and he would have plenty of time left to begin again in a civilian career. The field grade officers who could really make a difference in such a situation had to be entirely too beholden to Klinton to remain in the upper echelons (look at Wesley Clark . . . Monicas lips were not the only ones on the Presidential cock).





You must be high.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:46:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 12:46:45 AM EST by natez]
Damn straight I served.

BCD New was insubordinate, and stupidly so. What about the 30,000 plus US troops serving under UN command this moment in the Republic Of Korea (although I served in Korea, I was one one of the few troops NOT under UN command)? Did they all violate their oath in your view? Even though they serve under a US 4-star?

Go back to ASSWeb or DU
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:56:48 AM EST
Members of the United States armed forces are not required to follow unlawful or illegal orders.


This is what differentiates a proffessional military from thugs, and why "I just did what I was told" is not a defense in a military court.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:06:26 AM EST
I just don't see how New was right by the rules.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:07:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheAmaazingCarl:
Members of the United States armed forces are not required to follow unlawful or illegal orders.


This is what differentiates a proffessional military from thugs, and why "I just did what I was told" is not a defense in a military court.



This illegal and unlawful order was what exactly? Maye you need to work on your definitions.

He was a dirtbag. Can him. He can always find a job in the "patriot" movement. The air will be a lot cleaner with him gone.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 9:44:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:

Originally Posted By napalm:

Originally Posted By poink:
With this simple act of disobeying a direct order, Spc. 4 Michael New set the stage for a legal battle that has profound implications for the future of American soldiers into service of the United Nations without the constitutional permission of Congress.




No such rank as Specialist 4 any longer.



The rank is called "Specialist." No 4, 5, or 6 anymore.



I served during that era. It wasn't uncommon to refer to them as spec-4's.





Yeah, I served around that era too. He's still not a Spec-4.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 10:13:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By natez:
Shitbag. Should have done prison time.



Link Posted: 9/19/2004 10:17:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 10:22:58 AM EST by ColtM4]

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
Does it bother you to have US troops under foriegn commanders?

I shiver at the thought of being put under a foriegn commander.



Yes sir, it does bother me. But that does not mean that I will not follow direct or lawful orders.




So if an Officer tells you to do something that you feel is unlawful or illegal you should just do as told !

No thank you , this is the USA we DONT SERVE UNDER THE FUCKING COMMAND OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY OR FOREIGN COMMAND ESPECIALLY THE ASSLICKING U.N.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 10:21:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 10:24:07 AM EST by ColtM4]

Originally Posted By natez:
Damn straight I served.

BCD New was insubordinate, and stupidly so. What about the 30,000 plus US troops serving under UN command this moment in the Republic Of Korea (although I served in Korea, I was one one of the few troops NOT under UN command)? Did they all violate their oath in your view? Even though they serve under a US 4-star?

Go back to ASSWeb or DU



Thats the point einstein , the troops in South Korea are under US control who are there under a UN resolution only !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 10:25:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
So if an Officer tells you to do something that you feel is unlawful or illegal you should just do as told !


You do exactly as the troop in question did, however you also have to be prepared for the consequences if you are wrong. Which in this case the SPC New was and in all rights should have ended up doing jail time.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 10:37:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By ColtM4:
So if an Officer tells you to do something that you feel is unlawful or illegal you should just do as told !



The lesson here is that if you are going to disobey the direct order of a superior officer, you had better have something more than a feeling that it is unlawful.
Top Top