TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
    Table of Authorities Citediv
    Statement of the Case1
    Statement of Facts1
    Assignment of Error I and Reply Argument

    THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING SPC NEW'S CAUSAL CHALLENGE AGAINST A MEMBER WHO ORDERED A SUBORDINATE TO WEAR THE UN UNIFORM AND DEPLOY TO MACEDONIA




    2

    Assignment of Error II and Reply Argument

    THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL WAS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT SPC NEW FAILED TO OBEY A LAWFUL ORDER



    5

    Assignment of Error III and Reply Argument

    BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AFTER THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE IN CHIEF SHOWED THAT SPC NEW WAS PREVENTED FROM COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER, THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO GRANT THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR A FINDING OF NOT GUILTY




    6

    Assignment of Error IV and Combined Reply Argument

    SPC NEW'S FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS ON THE DEFENSE OF INABILITY





    7

    Assignment of Error V and Combined Reply Argument

    SPC NEW'S FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS ON THE DEFENSE OF OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS





    7

    Assignment of Error VI and Reply Argument

    SPC NEW'S FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE MEMBERS ERRONEOUSLY ON THE DEFENSE OF MISTAKE




    11

    Assignment of Error VII and Reply Argument

    SPC NEW'S FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL; HIS RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY MEMBERS; AND HIS RIGHTS TO COMPULSORY PROCESS, CONFRONTATION OF WITNESSES, AND EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO PERMIT THE MEMBERS TO HEAR EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THE ORDER




    13

    Assignment of Error VIII and Reply Argument

    THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE ORDER WAS LAWFUL



    15

      A.
      The Government Does Not Seriously Contest the Unlawfulness of the Order to Deploy in the UN Uniform


      15

      B.
      The Political Question Doctrine Did Not Constrain the Court-martial and Does Not Constrain this Court from Deciding Any Issue in this Case

      19

        1.
        The Political Question Doctrine Binds Only Article III Courts

        19

        2.
        Questions of Statutory Interpretation Are Not Political Questions

        21

        3.
        The Issues in this Case Are Justiciable Even Under Standards For Constitutional Cases Arising in Article III Courts

        24

          a.
          Military Questions Can Be Justiciable

          25

          b.
          Foreign Policy Questions Can Be Justiciable

          25

          c.
          SPC New's Claims Differ from Vietnam Cases

          25

          d.
          A Detailed Inquiry into the Baker Standards Demonstrates that the Issues in SPC New's Case are Justiciable

          26

    Assignment of Error IX and Reply Argument

    AN APPROVED SENTENCE THAT INCLUDES A BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE FOR SPC NEW’S OFFENSE IS INAPPROPRIATELY SEVERE



    32

    Certificate of Filing and Service
    35