Military Court Refuses to Hear American Soldier's Petition

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
By: Micheal New Legal Defense
 
Sept. 12, 2012 - PRLog -- (District of Columbia) - The Court of  Appeals of the Armed Forces (http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/home.htm) 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 (See http://mikenew.com/pdd25.html) 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 (See http://www.mikenew.com/CSP_Act_2013.html) , and make sure your congressman  knows about it - ask him to become a co-sponsor.
End
Source:Micheal New Legal Defense
Email:***@danielnew.com Email Verified
Tags:Court Martial, Clinton, PDD25, Illegal Order
Industry:Legal defense
Location:Dallas - Texas - United States
Account Email Address Verified     Account Phone Number Verified     Disclaimer     Report Abuse



Like PRLog?
9K2K1K
Click to Share