Army Dodges a Bullet -- For Now

by John F. McManus

from The New American

On January 24th, a court-martial in Wuerzburg, Germany convicted U.S. Army Specialist 4th Class Michael New of refusal to obey an order involving deployment to Macedonia under a United Nations command. His sentence, handed down by a seven-man panel made up of four officers and three enlisted personnel, was merely a bad conduct discharge. He could have been imprisoned for six months of hard labor, reduced in rank, slapped with a fine, and given a dishonorable discharge.

The entire case boiled down to disobedience of an order requiring New to don a uniform containing UN insignia preparatory to going to Macedonia. When the presiding judge, Lieutenant Colonel W. Gary Jewell, ruled that the order was lawful, the case was essentially closed. New never denied disobeying the order; he contended that the order was unlawful.

New wanted to test the legality and constitutionality of the deployment of U.S. military personnel to UN command. But the military authorities were quick to state that any such challenge should be made "on Capitol Hill." Hence, as Daniel New, the soldier's father, stated, "Once the order was declared lawful, we had no expectation of winning the case at this lower level."

The Army's prosecutor, Captain Gary Corn, did state that if New were not punished, his action could spread like a "cancer" throughout the military. The outpouring of support for Spec. New from fellow soldiers confirms Corn's assessment.

Constitutional Issue

Military procedure calls for the trial's result to be forwarded to the unit commanding general, who can accept the decision, change it, order a retrial, or declare the matter null. Five congressmen have written to that commander, Major General Montgomery C. Meigs, asking him to "overturn the conviction" and grant New an honorable discharge. The congressmen -- Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), David Funderburk (R-NC), Robert Dornan (R-CA), James Traficant (D-OH), and John Hostettler (R-IL) -- note that New has raised "a valid constitutional issue" that will be addressed by Congress "in the very near future."

Since it is unlikely that General Meigs can allow the "cancer" to spread, the New defense forces are readying appeals. Meanwhile, New is required to remain in the service in Germany at a desk job and the family's suit aimed at the Department of Defense has yet to be heard.

Required to address only the matter of the order given to Spec. New and not the broader constitutional issues involved, New's defense team was still able to construct a solid case based on four reasons why the order was illegal:

• According to Army Regulation 670_1, placing UN accouterments on an Army uniform is not only not permitted, but is expressly prohibited.
• The order to deploy to Macedonia was authorized under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. But U.S. law requires that any deployment related to Chapter VII receive prior congressional approval. None has ever been given by Congress.
• The order to wear a UN uniform is a breach of Michael New's enlistment contract, since he agreed to serve the U.S. military, not the military of some foreign government.
• The order transferring New to a foreign command against his will constitutes "involuntary servitude," which is forbidden by the 13th Amendment.

That the military judge could discount all of this and decree that the order was lawful points clearly to official fear that a "cancer" would indeed spread. It also makes this proceeding a kangaroo court. The seven "jurors" -- operating on the false premise that the order was lawful -- could hardly render any other verdict. New admitted freely that he disobeyed the order because he believed it to be illegal. Case closed!

Under Foreign Command

Official government spokesmen regularly claim that no Americans are ever placed under the command of any foreign leaders. They insist that even while serving in a UN operation such as this one in Macedonia, our forces retain their direct line of command to the President as Commander in Chief.

Michael New was transferred when he balked at the order to wear a UN uniform. The members of his former unit are now in Macedonia dutifully wearing a UN shoulder patch and headgear, and are under the command of Brigadier General Juha Engstrom of the Army of Finland.

Last October, after New had made known his intention to refuse transfer to a UN command, Engstrom journeyed to the U.S. Army post at Schweinfurt, Germany to address the men he would soon be leading. As recorded in the Army newspaper Marneland Crusader, Engstrom told them, "This is a very unique and historic opportunity. Before Macedonia, a non-American or non-NATO officer has never before had command of an American battalion abroad."

Engstrom understands that he is the commander of the U.S. troops, the U.S. troops he is commanding understand it, and the senior military officials who arranged for this deployment understand it. And so does the President of the United States, who enthusiastically applauds what is being done.

Michael New is not only correct, but his position is supported by the Constitution. No President has the authority to transfer U.S. forces to a foreign command. Congress must rein in the President's imperial powers. And withdrawing this nation from the UN is long overdue.

This matter certainly does raise "a valid constitutional issue." And Michael New, a 22-year old Army enlisted man, is a hero for having raised it.

END

WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer and non-commercial mail-list transfer only. All other copyright privileges are reserved. Address reposting requests to or the above address.

Historical source: new_verdict.html