Military Court Refuses to Hear American Soldier’s Petition

(District of Columbia) – The Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces issued on Monday another denial to the only soldier ever court-martialed for wanting to serve his country exclusively. The decision was handed down without comment by CAAF, which is the highest military court in America, refusing to specify why the petition was denied. Once again, a stone wall has been erected by the military, who apparently cannot refute the legal arguments brought by attorneys for former Specialist Michael New. New was the regular Army medic who refused, in 1995, to obey what he claims was an illegal order issued by President Bill Clinton to deploy under a Swedish general officer, on a United Nations’ deployment, into the troubled Republic of Macedonia.

SPC New had no problem with deployment to a battle zone, having served in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at the end of Desert Storm, in Operation Southern Watch. In fact, he was looking forward to the deployment until he learned that he would be required to wear a blue beret and to remove the US flag from his right shoulder, replacing it with a United Nations patch.

It has long been a fundamental legal doctrine in both civilian and military jurisprudence that the prosecution has a duty to turn over to the defence all information that might prove to be exculpatory – to show the innocence of the accused. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this legal doctrine. The Army now admits that they made a mistake in not delivering Clinton’s infamous Presidential Decision Directive 25 to New’s attorneys, as ordered by the judge in the original court-martial. But the Army maintains that it was “harmless error”.

According to Daniel New, Project Manager of the Michael New Action Fund:
•    A career was ruined, but the Army considers that harmless.
•    Army Regulations of uniform were violated, but the Army considers that harmless.
•    The deployment to Macedonia turns out to have been illegal, but the Army considers that harmless.
•    The Constitution’s rules of engagement were broken, but the Army considers that harmless.
•    The status of American Soldiers was changed to that of United Nations’ “peacekeepers”, but the Army considers that harmless.
•    Had those soldiers been captured, they would NOT have been classified as American POW’s, but as “U.N. Hostages”, but the Army considers that harmless.
•    The president lied to Congress, but the Army considers that harmless.
•    The president usurped Congressional authority, but the Army considers that harmless.
•    The president broke the law, the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, but the Army considers that harmless.
•    The national sovereignty of the United States was compromised, but the Army considers that harmless.
Says Daniel New, “It appears that the U.S. Army has decided that the best defense is a stone wall, because they now refuse to respond to the legal arguments put forth by Michael New and his attorneys. The military courts concur that silence will have to do – the American people do not need to have the crimes of presidents exposed, merely for the sake of a career of a lowly Citizen Soldier.”

And what does Michael New say about all this? “If they’ll give me an Honorable Discharge, I’ll drop the whole matter. I did nothing wrong by wanting to serve my own country. In Basic Training we were told that it is our duty to disobey illegal orders. For the sake of every man and woman in uniform today, and for the sake of my sons, I won’t accept it that we can be traded like NFL players to foreign powers, where we can be forced to serve, fight and die for a One World Agenda that may or may not be in the best interests of my country. I am not a mercenary, and I will not serve under the United Nations. That is not negotiable.”

A bill has been introduced in Congress several times, and will be introduced again next year, to prevent the forcible deployment of American military personnel under the United Nations, without specific Congressional authorization. See Citizen Soldier Protection Act of 2013, and make sure your congressman knows about it – ask him to become a co-sponsor.

For more information, please contact:

Daniel New, Project Manager

One Response to Military Court Refuses to Hear American Soldier’s Petition

  1. Kathleen Ream Reply

    28 November 2016 at 6:05 pm

    Another case of our government’s injustice for the sake of those in power and at the expense of a fine patriot. Letters to be written and prayers to be said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *