Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to decide whether to hear Michael New's case soon!
http://www.mikenew.com/ ^

Posted on 03/24/2007 7:42:40 PM PDT by www.saveourguns.org

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at mikenew.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antitheist; commanderinchief; constitution; judiciary; law; michaelnew; military; scotus; supremecourt; un
(District of Columbia) - The US Government finally got it's brief filied with the Supreme Court after two extensions of time, on March 20. We have ten days, and with the long weekend, until 2 April to file our Reply, but it won"t take that long.

You may view the Government's Brief on our website at http://www.mikenew.com/ as the latest entry under Legal Documents. Our Reply will be posted as soon as it is available.

1 posted on 03/24/2007 7:42:43 PM PDT by www.saveourguns.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

bump!


2 posted on 03/24/2007 7:46:55 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org
Very profound statement.

If four Justices vote "YES", then our case will be scheduled for Oral Auguments. If fewer than four, then our legal fight for the sovereignty of our military and our nation may be at an end.

3 posted on 03/24/2007 7:48:25 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
Hi, Caplernia. Looks to me like our sovereignty hangs in the balance. If it fails, having borders won't mean a thing any more. The un will control us.
4 posted on 03/24/2007 7:52:36 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold
>>>The un will control us.
A precedent was already set:
http://justwhatithink.com/blog/index.php?y=2006&m=10&d=3 R.I.P. Congresswoman Chenoweth
5 posted on 03/24/2007 7:55:28 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

http://justwhatithink.com/blog/index.php?y=2006&m=10&d=3


6 posted on 03/24/2007 7:55:59 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

Hope you win. Good luck.


7 posted on 03/24/2007 8:04:27 PM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

You and JG should see this.


8 posted on 03/24/2007 8:06:05 PM PDT by miele man (Continually voting against iodine deficient libs for 42 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
Thank you. Two passages jumped out at me.

1)However, in Kosovo, Bill Clinton has committed America's military might to the support of bin Ladin's Balkan allies, and the policy of the Clinton Administration seeks the creation of a Balkan outpost for bin Ladin's terrorist network.
2)Instead, Congress submitted to the usurpations of a corrupt, impeached President, and made itself complicit in his crimes against our Constitution and our national sovereignty.

Unbelievable.

9 posted on 03/24/2007 8:08:58 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org; xzins; P-Marlowe; Gamecock
I don't see how Mr. New can claim he was doing anything other than violating a lawful order.

Put it this way - if Lt. Watada can't claim that he was justified to miss troop movement because the war was unjust, then Michael New can't refuse to serve under UN command.

You don't get to pick where the military sends ya. Such is the price you pay in joining the military.

No sympathy for New or Watada.

10 posted on 03/24/2007 8:09:58 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org; freema

PINGGGGGGGGGG!!!


11 posted on 03/24/2007 8:26:02 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Because LT. Watada was under the orders of the United States military, and New, an American soldier also, would have been under the order of the united nations. Our soldiers don't swear allegiance to the un, but they do to the US.

I may not be clear in my explanation but hopefully you'll see what I'm getting at.

12 posted on 03/24/2007 8:38:35 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold; xzins; P-Marlowe; Gamecock
wrote: Because LT. Watada was under the orders of the United States military

Not necessarily. He would have been under the command of Multinational Forces Iraq, which includes the US, but also Iraq and other Coalition authorities. But, to expand the example a little - what about a soldier under NATO command in Afghanistan?

You don't get to pick who commands your unit. Sometimes units are sent under the command of NATO or MNFI or the UN. Such is the life of the soldier.

Nope, New was a grandstander who violated a lawful order to make a political point. You're not allowed to do that in uniform. That's unacceptable, and he deserves whatever he got.

13 posted on 03/24/2007 8:42:55 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Nope, New was a grandstander who violated a lawful order to make a political point. You're not allowed to do that in uniform. That's unacceptable, and he deserves whatever he got.



No, New was a loyal American. Commander in Chief Clinton was a traitor when he used American soldiers to further an anti-American institution.


14 posted on 03/24/2007 8:54:24 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Duncan Hunter '08 Pro family, pro life, pro second Amendment, not a control freak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
Commander in Chief Clinton was a traitor when he used American soldiers to further an anti-American institution.

Uniformed soldiers can't make those determinations.

Watdada says the same thing about Pres. Bush.

15 posted on 03/24/2007 8:56:10 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jude24
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.

He would have been under the command of Multinational Forces Iraq, which includes the US, but also Iraq and other Coalition authorities. But, to expand the example a little - what about a soldier under NATO command in Afghanistan?

Do any of our military under any circumstances you outlined above wear any other insigna or dress other than American?

I was looking for a picture of a NATO uniform and found this article.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/perspective/perspective2.htm

NATO was formed under the auspices of the United Nations' Charter,

Looks like nato works for the un. Am I wrong?

16 posted on 03/24/2007 8:57:10 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Watdada says the same thing about Pres. Bush.

As opposite examples as I have ever seen. Watada was under US military orders, New would have been under UN orders. There is no country named un and New was not a citizen of that non country and has no fidelity to the un. Watada, can not claim the same.

17 posted on 03/24/2007 9:02:54 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold; xzins; Gamecock
Looks like nato works for the un. Am I wrong?

NATO is authorized under the UN Charter (it's considered a "regional arrangement" under Art. 51 of the Charter), but it was established by its own treaties.

Do any of our military under any circumstances you outlined above wear any other insigna

Good question.

18 posted on 03/24/2007 9:04:21 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jude24
NATO is authorized under the UN Charter

It was concieved by the un and gets it's marching orders from the un so yes, NATO works for the un.

Question...does an American president go to or get permission or at least discuss with the un possible missions before that mission is launched?

19 posted on 03/24/2007 9:10:30 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold
There is no country named un and New was not a citizen of that non country and has no fidelity to the un.

Nope, but the United States is a signatory to the UN Charter, a treaty which it itself promulgated. Treaties are the law of the United States. Mr. New was not in a position to question the validity of working with the UN.

The examples are intentionally opposite, but they share a common thread. Both are individual officers who believed they could disobey lawful orders to make political points. "Theirs not to reason why/Theirs but to do or die."

20 posted on 03/24/2007 9:10:46 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold
gets it's marching orders from the un

That's certainly not true.

21 posted on 03/24/2007 9:11:46 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jude24
That's certainly not true.

How so?

22 posted on 03/24/2007 9:18:46 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold

The UN has no jurisdiction over NATO. It does not get to tell NATO what to do. There is no chain of command where NATO reports to the UN. Decisions are made by delegations from NATO member states, NOT the UN.


23 posted on 03/24/2007 9:24:33 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Mr. New was not in a position to question the validity of working with the UN.

That's where we'll have to just agree to disagree. Only congress can declare war, the un doesn't have the power to make American soldiers serve in a war. Well, at least they didn't.

24 posted on 03/24/2007 9:25:07 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jude24
For all intents and purposes, NATO works for and with the un.

http://www.nato.int/issues/un/index.html

Click on the link at the bottom as well. Out of principle I never capitalize the un. *spit*

25 posted on 03/24/2007 9:36:25 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold
NATO works for and with the un.

For? No. With? Absolutely.

Out of principle I never capitalize the un. *spit*

Well, that's certainly a mature attitude....

26 posted on 03/24/2007 9:40:16 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jude24
There is no chain of command where NATO reports to the UN.

Then please explain this from NATO's own site....

NATO’s Secretary General reports regularly to the UN Secretary General on progress in NATO-led operations and on other key decisions of the North Atlantic Council in the area of crisis management and in the fight against terrorism.

27 posted on 03/24/2007 9:43:37 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Well, that's certainly a mature attitude....,p>Never claimed to be mature now, did I?

The un charter was set up by Alger Hess. A communists, set on destroying the US. And it's working.

28 posted on 03/24/2007 9:47:25 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Uniformed soldiers can't make those determinations.


When the Nazi guards were put on trial for following orders the court decided differently.


29 posted on 03/24/2007 11:20:37 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Duncan Hunter '08 Pro family, pro life, pro second Amendment, not a control freak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jude24

This will not be the first time that American troops have been part of an international joint task force to accomplish a military mission in the interest of our country.

We had entire divisions under the Brits in WWII. We must always look to how any unit might be assigned to another unit.

Is it attached, op-conned, etc.?

However, I don't recall that US troops were ever asked to don the uniform of another nation.


30 posted on 03/25/2007 2:41:53 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nailbiter

read later


31 posted on 03/25/2007 3:43:55 AM PDT by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; 1stbn27; 2111USMC; 2nd Bn, 11th Mar; 68 grunt; A.A. Cunningham; ASOC; AirForceBrat23; ...

Delivered, dcwusmc!


32 posted on 03/25/2007 5:58:37 AM PDT by freema (Marine FRiend, 1stCuz2xRemoved, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

BFLR


33 posted on 03/25/2007 7:14:45 AM PDT by cgk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: freema

Soldiers have to obey their chain of command's orders. It really is that simple.


35 posted on 03/25/2007 5:39:06 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
Illegal orders do not have to be followed. It is really that simple.

The court in this case must determine whether the order was legal under the constitution, which was, when I served the final authority I swore to obey. If you don't think that the command has to obey the authority under which it operates, why would you assume this young troop needs to? To get a paycheck?

36 posted on 03/28/2007 3:46:01 PM PDT by MrEdd (Always look on the bright side of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
The issue is with a soldier that did not follow his orders. Don't twist (most probabably with no malice nor ill conceived intent on your part) the issue at hand.
You sign up. You agree to follow the orders handed down to the best of your ability. The military cannot afford to have every soldier, airmen, sailor, aviator, Marine decide when to obey an order. Surely you can appreciate that.
I don't like this crap anymore then you do. American service personel should be allowed to wear their military designated dress. But the soldier did not follow his chain of command on this issue.
37 posted on 03/28/2007 4:08:13 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

You will not win your case.


38 posted on 03/28/2007 4:15:15 PM PDT by verity (Muhammed is a Dirt Bag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
I did not twist anything. I proposed that the government of the united states operates within a set of legal strictures, and is actually limited by them.

That is the very heart of this case. not the color blue. not the shape of the UN logo. the heart of this case is whether or not the government is limited under it's chartering constitution from commanding one of it's citizens to serve under an outside authority.

You don't get to dodge that question anymore than the Nazi troops tried for war crimes at Nuremberg did. Is there a limit to what the command may dictate, or is there not.

From the constitution:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So as written personnel in our military serve in a chain of command of which their elected president is the direct head. at issue is whether or not they may be compelled to serve in a chain of command over which their president is not the direct head.

This is not some quibble of no substance. This is not some lazy ass sea lawyer scheme to get out of some work detail. If the command is not operating under the social contract our current government was founded under why should they be obeyed at any point ever? The concepts of duty and honor will no longer be applicable to the command structure, once it leaves the confines of it's empowering authority.

You have to put more intellect into this than absentmindedly mouthing "he didn't follow orders" His commanding officer had orders under Article Two, Section Two of the constitution that he directly abrogated. You seem to have no problem with that.

39 posted on 03/28/2007 4:56:24 PM PDT by MrEdd (Always look on the bright side of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
"The concepts of duty and honor will no longer be applicable to the command structure, once it leaves the confines of it's empowering authority."
I agree most heartly on this concept. But it is not in the soldier's contract to decide when or when not to follow his commands lead. You should know. You served.
40 posted on 03/28/2007 5:33:25 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
I did indeed. And the contract that I signed first under the Carter administration had the constitution as the highest authority i served under. and just as my platoon sergeant could not over rule the dictates of the company commander, the battalion commander, or even the secretary of the navy can not over rule the strictures of the constitution. In the same way that I would not obey an order to lob mortar fire into a girl scout camp in an enemy territory, I would not do this either. you are still trying to dodge the issue at hand.

For you to be consistent in your reasoning you have to hold that the trials at Nuremberg were wrong. Do you honestly hold the position that lower levels of command can disobey the top levels of command by following intermediate levels. Either the constitution authorizes and somewhat structures the military, (in which case Michael New's point must be addressed)or the military is an extra-constitutional tool of the president that has no strictures and which can do what it wants wherever it wants.

Our practical knowledge material included a tiny red book copy of the constitution that I still have after all these years.

41 posted on 03/28/2007 5:52:35 PM PDT by MrEdd (Always look on the bright side of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

It has occured to me I must have not read the article carefully. I will read it from scratch. I must be missing something, and are giving you a hard time un-intentially.


42 posted on 03/28/2007 5:58:01 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
My apologies and a big Semper Fi to you. After carefully reading the Fact section.....
"9. That on arrival to Camp Able Sentry, the soldiers of 1-15 In, to include SPC New had he deployed with them, were issued the "UN Peace-keeping force" identification card; and that, according to the Aide Memoire, the "UN Peace-keeping force" identification card is the only identity document required in the area of operation."

Things are rather clear to me what this soldier did was not unreasonable in the least.
Only thing to add or re-iterate. I don't like it one bit that our service personel have to serve under any joint commands, other then carefully orchestrated NATO missions, where all participants are on the same side.
Shame on me for not having clicked on the site and only having read the lead in...
43 posted on 03/28/2007 6:15:45 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

NP. I've been following this one off and on since it began under Clinton.


44 posted on 03/28/2007 6:27:27 PM PDT by MrEdd (Always look on the bright side of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

Very Best Wishes


45 posted on 03/28/2007 6:29:06 PM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle; MrEdd

Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice expressly states that soldiers are to obey all "LAWFUL" orders. Any unlawful order must be disobeyed. In fact, the "we were just following orders" defense has been ruled" invalid by the Supreme Court" as early as 1799 during the war with France. In this conflict the President ordered a Navy captain to illegally seize a Dutch ship. The result of this case was the courts decision that sometimes when soldiers follow orders "they act at their own peril" if the president's orders are illegal. Also he Court of Military Appeals held during the Vietnam war that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."


46 posted on 03/29/2007 12:21:09 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: old republic

A nice add on at this point. Let us hope this soldier shall find his actions in good conscience as well as loyalty to our country, and of course pride in his branch of military freed of all wrong doing.


47 posted on 03/29/2007 4:02:00 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson