Perhaps this is why JFKerry wants the UN to handle things around the world. After all there are still a few churches left standing. Something must be done.
But . . . but . . . the Kosovo war was "successful" - the media told me so, Wesley Clark told me so; everything is solved over there.
Hey, you forgot to factor in the part about some folks liking to see churches burning. If that's your idea of a good time, everything's cool over there.
The fact that our troops are associated with this and other Bosnia-Kosovo-Serbia fiascos is one more reason why I wish Michael New had won his case.
He was the military guy who didn't go because this mission was conducted not by our military but by another (NATO-UN) and he had no duty to follow the orders of others (rough remembrance).
A visit to mikenew.com indicates that this saga is far from over:
++++++
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
24 March 2004
CONTACT: Daniel New
ddnew@mikenew.com Michael New wins a round in court!
(District of Columbia) - U.S. District Court ruled last week that former Army Specialist Michael New would be allowed to file an amended complaint with the court, and denied the Justice Department's request that the case be dismissed.
Michael New is the only American ever convicted of wanting to serve his country exclusively. He disobeyed a direct order in 1995 to wear an American uniform altered with unauthorized changes, including a blue cap, blue scarf, and UN emblem on the right shoulder, and then to report to an illegal chain of command.
New's unit was ordered to deploy into Macedonia under an officer who was forbidden by the U.S. Constitution to command American soldiers. Spc. New believed those orders to be a violation of Army regulations and of his Constitutional rights as a Citizen-Soldier.
Michael New was court-martialed in 1996 and given a Bad Conduct Discharge.
Knowing that no military court could find the will to rule against Bill Clinton, he took his case to US District Court, Judge Paul Friedman presiding. The Army argued in District Court that the case is purely military, and has no place in a civilian court. Judge Freidman refused to hear the case in 1996, citing a lack of jurisdiction, but invited it back to his court, “after the military remedy is exhausted."
Michael New exhausted that military appeal in 2002, with the Army arguing repeatedly that the case was a purely civilian case with political overtones, and that it had no place in military courts. The loss of all military appeals opened the door to return to Judge Friedman’s courtroom.
The government made numerous objections to New's first complaint, citing jurisdictional issues over claims to back pay and restoration of benefits. As a result, every thing they objected to was removed, and the complaint was presented back to the court as an amended complaint. One might have expected the government to have been happy, but instead, they then filed for dismissal. Judge Friedman has denied their request. The Justice Department has until April 16 to respond, and then a docket date for trial will be set.
According to Daniel New, father of Michael New, and spokesman for his defense, "It's a small step to win this round, but a very important one. The government is now forced to argue on the merits, for the first time in almost nine years. They are about to find out what this issue is all about, and frankly, I don't believe they have a clue. They still think it's about obeying orders. The Constitutional issues are about to be argued -- we anticipate that the government will be very poorly prepared. It's been a long time since they even thought about the Constitution!"
“The delays have been extraordinarily long, at every step of the process. This important legal battle has taken almost nine years," stated Michael New’s lead attorney, Herbert W. Titus. “Yet there are men and women in uniform today, and for generations to come, who will be affected by this ruling."
Suzanne New, Mike’s mother, says, “We raised our sons to be loyal Americans, to believe in God and the Constitution. Are we to tell our grandsons that we were wrong, that they must serve and possibly die for the United Nations?"
“This battle is not about me," says Michael New. “It’s about whether every American who serves in our military might become mercenaries who will be forced to wear the U.N. uniform, take orders from foreign commanders and possibly even stand trial under global courts." New continued, “And I don’t intend to let them down."
zzzzz
Herbert W. Titus is a leading Constitutional attorney practicing in Chesapeake, Virginia. He can be reached for comment by press at his office 757/421-4141, or by e-mail at
forecast22@pinn.net.
I believed then, and still believe, that this is an important case. If W and his advisers had half a brain, they would seize this opportunity, when the UN is at its nadir (failing to enforce Resolution 1441, Oil For Food corruption, etc.) to at a minimum stop stalling and get the matter fully heard (and then get out of the way).
I believe that eastern Christian art is the best visual representation of Christian teaching. The iconographic style seems appropriate for this purpose; although raised a Catholic, I've always been repelled by the Renaiassance and Baroque style which dominates much of western Christian art, particularly at the Vatican. I guess you get one result when you have religious paintings done by monks, another when they're done by Italian playboys and boofers.
