|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: Best sellers at The Sharper Image February 20, 2005 The Case of Michael New By Jan A. Larson The case of Michael New has not gotten much publicity in recent years, but nevertheless the case continues. On October 10, 1995, Specialist 4 Michael New of the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division of the U. S. Army refused to join his fellow soldiers in donning the sky-blue cap bearing a United Nations insignia as part of a UN peacekeeping force assigned to a mission in Macedonia. As a result, he was subjected to court-martial, convicted and received a "bad conduct" discharge. Specialist New's defense centered on the fact that he took an oath of loyalty to "defend the Constitution of the United States" and would "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" which is contradictory to the notion of forced servitude under the command of a foreign national, in this case Brigadier General Jehu Engstrom of the Finnish Army Command, and the United Nations. However, the oath also includes an obedience clause that states, "I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me ..." which forms the grounds for the charge against New of disobeying a lawful order. One aspect of New's defense has centered on whether the deployment to Macedonia and the subsequent order to wear the insignia of the UN was a lawful order. The president is authorized under the UN Participation Act of 1945 to deploy U. S. troops as observers, guards or in other non-combat capacities in accordance with Chapter VI of the UN Charter. New argued that the deployment to Macedonia did not fall under Chapter VI, but rather under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which requires prior authorization by Congress. Since there had been no congressional approval, the Clinton administration was wrong to deploy troops to Macedonia and, by extension, the order for Spc. New to wear the UN insignia and serve under the command of a non-U. S. General was not a lawful order. As a result, New's counsel entered a motion to dismiss the case based on unlawful deployment. A second motion to dismiss the case was entered based on breach of contract claiming that by placing New under the command of an officer not bound by the same oath violated New's enlistment contract. A third motion to dismiss was based the recognition that the wearing of UN insignias violates the U. S. Constitution, the U. S. Code, federal regulations and Army uniform requirements. All motions were rejected and New's defense was restricted to arguing only the disobedience issue and not the constitutional issues. In January of 1996, a court-martial panel returned a guilty verdict on the question of disobedience. New appealed that decision to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, which in April of 1999 affirmed the court-martial. The case was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces. On June 14, 2001, the court affirmed the lower court rulings. Judge Paul Freidman of the U. S. District Court in Washington D. C. had refused to hear the case in 1996, ruling that all military remedies must be exhausted before the case could be heard. In 2002, the case returned to the District Court where New's petition sought for his conviction to be set aside based on the invalidity of the order he was convicted of disobeying and the improper submission of that order's lawfulness to the military judge. The wheels of justice turn slowly. It took until December of 2004 before Judge Freidman ruled against New in granting the government's motion to dismiss New's case. New plans to appeal. In the nearly 10 years since Michael New took a stand, the nature of the UN has changed. While serving under a Finnish general in 1995 may not have had dire consequences for New (although the status of any soldier representing the UN that is captured in combat is unclear), the deployment of U. S. troops under UN command would be very different today. That is not something that most Americans, I believe, would favor. I personally applaud Specialist New for his conviction and sincerely hope that his claims are ultimately upheld. No U. S. service member should ever be forced to serve under any foreign command without his or her consent. Bill were introduced in the House in both 2000 and 2002 to address this issue, but neither was ultimately signed into law. Disclaimer: This author has contributed to Michael New's defense fund ( http://www.mikenew.com ). -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
