Mike New Loses Legal Battle

[Lambo]

This is really bad news! Now that this Ruling has been established, and if it isn't Overturned, I would strongly suggest that no one enlist in the U. S. Military!
Lambo

PRESS RELEASE - for immediate release
23 April 2007

contact: Daniel New, Project Manager 254-796-2173 [email protected]
Michael New Action Fund
Michael New Legal Defense Fund
P.O. Box 100
Iredell, Texas 76649

Former Army Specialist Michael New's petition to the US Supreme Court, asking them to review his case, and the lack of due process and the sudden change in the legal "standard of review" applied to it, has been denied. Thus ends a legal battle that began in August of 1995.

What does this ruling mean to Americans?
If you are in the military, it means that you and your attorneys have no right to present evidence in your defense in courts-martial, for evidence has suddenly become "discretionary element" of the prosecution. This means that, if the judge and the prosecutor want the jury to see your evidence, they will allow it, and if they don't, they will deny it. And the bottom line on this issue is that no member of the Armed Forces can mount an effective legal defense. They will be denied due process, and the "standard of review" that has been recognized by all Appellate Courts for over 40 years has just been shredded. Lawyers will understand the legal chaos and confusion that has just been upheld.


If you are in the military, or considering enlisting, it also means that the Executive Branch now will feel completely at liberty to ignore the US Constitution, and place you in a United Nations uniform, under the command authority of a foreign officer, to pursue a military policy that is distinct from the legal and official policies of the United States of America. In effect, you may be turned into a mercenary at the discretion of the President. You are for sale, rent, hire, or loan, as determined by the political party of the moment, and you, or your children, may be ordered to fight, bleed and possibly die for the United Nations, without due process.


If you are a Member of Congress, or are represented there, it means that the Executive Branch may now send our soldiers into war, (under the UN), without bothering with little inconveniences like getting a Congressional Declaration of War. This, thanks to Presidential Decision Directive #25, which was touted as the legal basis of the order to send Michael New under the UN, in apparent contradiction of existing law and precedent. The balance of power between the branches of government, as intended by the Founding Fathers, has just been destroyed.


If you are a tinhorn petty dictator, posing no real threat to the United States, it means you no longer have to threaten the USA with words or action - that the President can send troops to invade you without a formal declaration of war.
There is more, but that's enough to demonstrate that the USA has just experienced a figurative shifting of the tectonic plates of our very existence, and the USA is not what we have all been led to believe it is - our Constitutional Republic is no longer simply sick - it appears to be dead. If the President can force Americans to fight, without a declaration of war, under foreign powers, then the Republic no longer exists.

Other than that, it's just another day. The grass will continue to grow, and the sun will continue to shine.

And what do we do now?

We're thinking about that, and considering many options. This would be a very good time to give us your own thinking on the subject.

Thank you all, so much, for your support over the past decade.

Daniel New
Project Manager

Real Americans don't wear U.N. blue!
www.MikeNew.com/

This is a U.N.-free Zone
www.UN-freeZone.org/

 

[Outlaw Man]

I understand all of this, but I have to ask if he realizes how many undeclared "wars" this country has been involved in compared to how many times we've declared war in the last century.

 

[GTSteve03]

This is really bad news! Now that this Ruling has been established, and if it isn't Overturned, I would strongly suggest that no one enlist in the U. S. Military!

I would make an exception to this, that if you plan on following the orders of your superiors unquestioningly and don't think about whether or not what you're doing is right or wrong, then feel free to enlist. You're exactly the kind of person Uncle Sam is looking for.

 

[junyo]

If you are a tinhorn petty dictator, posing no real threat to the United States, it means you no longer have to threaten the USA with words or action - that the President can send troops to invade you without a formal declaration of war.

I'm never quite sure what arguing from the poor, put upon dictator's point of view is supposed convince me of. I mean I understand in principle and all, but then again, once you're a "tinhorn petty dictator" haven't you pretty much conceded the moral high ground? This little blurb would work a lot better if it were morally neutral, like "If you are the leader of a sovereign nation blah blah blah" or "If you are a benelovent dictator..." See, trade "benevolent" for "tinhorn petty" and you've changed the whole tone of your merciless reign of terror.

 

[JerryM]

Having spent 22 years on active duty, I never once knew of an unfair case. I was a couple of times for 6 months to a year assigned as a trial counsel before one had to be a lawyer.
If I were guilty I would rather face a civilian court where shenanigans sometimes get the guilty off. But if I were innocent I would much rather face a military court.

If I remember Mike refused to wear the UN blue. While I sympathize with him, and agree that US soldiers should not have to do so, the order was legal as far as I can determine. Each soldier does not have the right to determine what is legal and what is not. He is free to disobey at his own peril. Mike disobeyed and lost. That is a consequence of disobeying what has been determined to be a lawful order, even though many, including myself, wish it were not so. Let laws be passed that prohibit such, although we must be careful of laws limiting the military unless it is something obvious, and those have been mostly covered.

A member of the military does in fact give up many rights and that is necessary in order to have a well disciplined fighting force. If one does not agree do not sign up.

Jerry

 

[hugh damright]

the Executive Branch now will feel completely at liberty to ignore the US Constitution, and place you in a United Nations uniform, under the command authority of a foreign officer, to pursue a military policy that is distinct from the legal and official policies of the United States of America.

I think this is what the Second Amendment is about ... the idea that the military must be subordinate to the civil power ...

"Nothing then, according to these principles, ought to be more guarded against in a free state, than making the military power, when such a one is necessary to be kept on foot, a body too distinct from the people - Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) "

 

[SIOP]

Each soldier does not have the right to determine what is legal and what is not.

Tell that to William Calley or all the guys we hanged at Nuremburg.

 

[JerryM]

Some orders are obviously wrong, and without listing them we know that rape, murder, and such things are wrong. Conventions and published laws, and regulations cover such things.
I am not aware that Calley was ordered to murder. He did it on his own. If each soldier decided, as some here would want you to think they would, he would refuse to follow orders because some Constitutional right was perceived to be violated, we could not fight a war.

There are ways under most circumstances to challenge without getting into great trouble. For instance Michael should have obeyed the order, then contacted the IG, and subsequently his congressman. But in the meantime he should have obeyed the order. In retrospect it is obvious that none of those challenges would have negated the legality of the order. While I will again say that US military should not have to wear the UN colors at the expense of the US, when you disobey an order the burden is on you to prove it unlawful. If you fail, then be man enough to take the consequences.

Michael disobeyed, and now must face the consequences. That is the way it is. Start telling your military superiors that you refuse orders because of your constitutional rights, and you will soon land in jail. The military does not live under the same rules of civilians. I am glad of that, because I see so many more concerned about their rights, but not their responsibilities.

Some here should join the Marines and tell the drill instructors about their rights. What a rude awakening some of you would get.

Jerry

 

[GRIZ22]

that the President can send troops to invade you without a formal declaration of war.


As other have said formal declarations of war were last done in WWII. Every US President since Truman has sent troops somewhere to fight to some degree without Congress declaring war.

Having spent 22 years on active duty, I never once knew of an unfair case. I was a couple of times for 6 months to a year assigned as a trial counsel before one had to be a lawyer.
If I were guilty I would rather face a civilian court where shenanigans sometimes get the guilty off. But if I were innocent I would much rather face a military court.


A member of the military does in fact give up many rights and that is necessary in order to have a well disciplined fighting force. If one does not agree do not sign up.


I went on active duty in 1967 (got the free 12 month tour of SE Asia) as a private and am now a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. The 2 above quotes are the absolute truth.

The military (depending on the severity of the offense) gives you several outs you can take if you are guilty. Non-judicial punishment, summary, special, and general court martial. If you think you can beat them you stand a better chance doing it in the military than you do as a civilian. I spent about 31 years as a civilian LEO. I can't say that I ever saw an innocent person get convicted in a civilian court but I have seen plenty of the guilty go free due to courtroom shenanigans as JerryM said.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

If one does not agree do not sign up.

Which works excellently until they decide to reinstitute the draft.


Then what?

 

[Art Eatman]

He was ordered to wear the UN armband, not any uniform beyond that of the U.S. Big deal. He should have gone to the Chaplain and gotten his TS card punched.

Don't like the deal? Finish your hitch and don't re-up. Simple enough. This wasn't any illegal order into forbidden country, or illegal order as to any military action.

There's a reason we always called guardhouse lawyers guardhouse lawyers. If you could buy them for what they know about the law and the Constitution, and sell them for what they think they know, you'd outdo Bill Gates' billfold.

And all the above doesn't mean I favored the overall deployment that New was ordered into.

And no more about Calley or the Draft; they're not pertinent to this topic.

The topic is the legal aspects of the New case.

Art

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

was this

a case of like father like son? like the guy from hawaii who wouldn't deploy with his striker unit

 

[Thin Black Line]

If I remember Mike refused to wear the UN blue. While I sympathize with him, and agree that US soldiers should not have to do so, the order was legal as far as I can determine.

and

He was ordered to wear the UN armband, not any uniform beyond that of the U.S. Big deal.

It has been a while since I followed this story. I'm actually surprised it took
this long to address. I can say I would have had a major problem with wearing
either the UN flag on my shoulder or the blue helmet cover which is a symbol
of the UN and it's so-called authority.

It is a matter of what you swore allegiance to and took an oath to defend.
Mine was to this country and its Constitution. When I was given a flag,
it was the US flag. Not the UN. It is a big deal.

In any case, TPTB learned from the New case: deploy soldiers under their
national flag even when it's for enforcement of international order.

So now we can all be happy, right?

 

[geronimotwo]

when enlisting, doesn't the enlistee sign away his rights to trial by our civilian legal system, and laws?

 

[brickeyee]

"If you are a tinhorn petty dictator, posing no real threat to the United States, it means you no longer have to threaten the USA with words or action - that the President can send troops to invade you without a formal declaration of war."

Pretty stupid for an attorney.

 

[Biker]

Art...

"Guardhouse lawyers"? We used a different house of residence as a reference.

Biker

 

[ilbob]

while I have a certain amount of sympathy for him, and also question the wisdom of this kind of deployment, the plain fact is that he refused an order, multiple times, from his lawful superiors.

in the military that is a no-no. you will only get away with such an act of defiance if you are on very solid ground. and that is as it should be.

it is not as if he was ordered to strafe refugees or something similar that would have an immediate consequence.

 

[Art Eatman]

Biker, we had a few folks who wound up doing "six and two-thirds" in Barbed Wire City at Pusan. Some would get back to the outfit and go to whining about how they'd been wrongfully treated. But I have always remembered one guy (Who'd been in Korea for around three years, trying to accumulate sixteen months of "good time" for rotation.) who was rather philosophical: "They don't put ya in there for doin' right."

, Art

 

[Robert Hairless]

This is really bad news! Now that this Ruling has been established, and if it isn't Overturned, I would strongly suggest that no one enlist in the U. S. Military!

Lambo

That'll teach them a lesson for sure. The country would be without a military defense if everyone follows your advice. Then we'll all be real sorry that Mike New wasn't allowed to have his own way.

A friend of mine got a speeding ticket he didn't deserve. He fought it and lost. If people continue to get speeding tickets, I strongly suggest that no one in the U.S. drive a car!

 

[JerryM]

"This is really bad news! Now that this Ruling has been established, and if it isn't Overturned, I would strongly suggest that no one enlist in the U. S. Military!"

If this had been the attitude during WWII we would be speaking either German or Russian. BOY, that would have shown the US Military that we don't take orders that we don't like.
Of course the Germans or Russians would not argue. They would have just shot you.

With Liberty goes Responsibility. Sometimes it is costly to exercise responsibility, but those who have are the ones who made and kept us free.

JFK was not one of my favorites, but I like what he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." (Maybe not a perfect quote, but everyone knows what it means.)

Our liberty was bought with the blood and sacrifices of those who answered the call of this nation when they were needed. That includes their families who stayed behind and supported them and the war efforts until victory. I am not sure that we will have enough of those heroes in the future. I am not at all optimistic.

Best,
Jerry

 

[SIOP]

JFK was not one of my favorites, but I like what he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." (Maybe not a perfect quote, but everyone knows what it means.)

Yeah, I know what it means.

It's almost exactly like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Getting sent to Macedonia under UN command wearing a blue beret has exactly ZERO to do with defending this country. What, you think if everyone refused to go that we'd all be speaking Macedonian?

 

[JerryM]

What I think is that if you don't perceive the difference there is nothing more to be said.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Our liberty was bought with the blood and sacrifices of those who answered the call of this nation when they were needed. That includes their families who stayed behind and supported them and the war efforts until victory. I am not sure that we will have enough of those heroes in the future. I am not at all optimistic.

Fighting for the UN was not fighting to protect our liberty, but rather, against it. Nothing like WWII. You do understand what the UN wants don't you? No guns, absolute govt. control of everything, world govt., etc.

The true heroes now are those resisting the orders of a presently illegitimate government fighting its own people to implement tyranny.

 

[Art Eatman]

AntiqueCollector, should we not have done any fighting during the Cold War era? Was the fear of the USSR all some gigantic charade?

Ever hear of Korea? Have any idea of the whys and wherefores?

That was a UN effort, for all that the US bore the brunt of it.

Art

 

[Sage of Seattle]

That'll teach them a lesson for sure. The country would be without a military defense if everyone follows your advice. Then we'll all be real sorry that Mike New wasn't allowed to have his own way.

Fighting under a foreign flag has nothing to do with this country's defense, even if ordered to by one's superiors.

A friend of mine got a speeding ticket he didn't deserve. He fought it and lost. If people continue to get speeding tickets, I strongly suggest that no one in the U.S. drive a car!

And I strongly suggest that no one in the US fail to fight any injustice, even if it is only an undeserved speeding ticket.

What I think is that if you don't perceive the difference there is nothing more to be said.

Nice dodge.