The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ended its 2000 regular term without rendering an opinion on the case of Army Specialist Michael New, who was court-martialed and given a bad-conduct discharge for refusing to wear a U.N. uniform and submit to the command of a foreign officer.

While serving stationed in Germany in 1995, New was among a few hundred troops President Clinton sent to Macedonia on a peacekeeping mission dispatched by the United Nations. The soldier chose not to obey what he calls an illegal order to remove his American military uniform patch in favor of the insignia and blue beret of the United Nations, saying he would not serve a foreign power.

Army Spc. Michael New

Consequently, New was slapped with a court-martial charging he had refused to obey a "lawful" order. Although his defense centered around the lawfulness of the order, evidence submitted by New's attorney bearing on that issue was set aside by Army Judge Lt. Col. Gary Jewell, New's court-martial judge who instructed the jury that the orders were indeed constitutional.

New appealed to the military's highest tribunal on the grounds that he was denied an element of his defense. Oral arguments were heard by the five-member panel of civilian judges on Feb. 4, and expectations were for a quick decision. However, the court concluded its 2000 session on Sept. 30 without making a decision on the case. Two other cases that were given oral hearings were also "held over," according to the court's clerk, Thomas Granahan, who said it is not unusual for "one or two" to be decided after the Sept. 30 deadline. The court operates on a year-round calendar from Oct. 1 -- Sept. 30, he noted.

One of the "held-over" cases originated in the Air Force and was heard by the Appeals Court on Apr. 5. The other is a Marine Corps case that was heard Feb. 29. Granahan said he could not speculate as to the reason for the lengthy consideration of any of the three cases.

Retired Army Judge Advocate General Lt. Col. Henry Hamilton, who represents New in the military courts, said he has heard speculation that the court is waiting until after the election to make a decision on New's appeal. Should the appeal be granted, New's conviction would be re-evaluated in light of his evidence that the order to obey the U.N. command was unlawful. In other words, his successful appeal would effectively be putting U.N. authority on trial.

"Some have speculated, and I decline to speculate, that substantial disagreement among the five judges or through lengthy and unusually convoluted legal reasoning, an attempt is being made to justify the army's constitutional error, which was taking away from the military jury one of the elements of the defense on the lawfulness of the order," Hamilton said, adding that he believes a decision will be rendered in late fall or early winter.

Dr. Herb Titus represents New in the civilian court system and serves as lead attorney in the soldier's defense.

"From a civilian perspective, I find it unusual that a court would not render an opinion when it had been argued during that particular term of court," Titus said, adding that "people become suspicious" when such delays occur. "Why is it taking this court so long to decide this case when the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't take this long?" he added.

New, a native Texan who has been extremely reserved in his communications with the news media, gave WorldNetDaily this statement: "It truly stuns me that a court-martial takes three days and an appeal 5 years. How is that possible? There is an amazing number of citizens and soldiers like myself who are awaiting the court's decision on this. We put the ball in their court. Aren't they supposed to return it now?"

According to Daniel New, Michael's father and "project manager" of his son's defense, the case "is becoming a farce. It does not require eight months to deliberate a simple question. What is becoming obvious to all sides is that an order to stonewall has come from on high, and every court seems to be participating in a collusion of silence. They are deliberately delaying justice. It's a very shortsighted policy, to protect a lame-duck perjurer who loathes the military, while the soldier patiently standing on the law is standing for national sovereignty and for every American who has ever worn the uniform. There are serious constitutional questions here, and the courts, in five years, have been unable to address a single one of them. This is injustice at its worst."

The question of whether American military personnel should submit to the United Nations has caused a firestorm among advocates for a global governing system and supporters of American sovereignty. But if U.N. Secretary General Kofi A. Annan of Ghana gets his way, every major country will have a set of troops dedicated to the United Nations.

In the "Kofi Doctrine," described by Annan in his opening address and report to the U.N. Millennium Summit, the secretary general outlines his vision of battalion-sized units of soldiers on permanent stand-by for peace-keeping purposes. The goal is to have each unit ready at a moment's notice to be shipped anywhere in the world to prevent or stop violence in any nation. The troops are to be trained by the British army, which, according to a Sept. 9 report by UPI, has already agreed to set up a center for that purpose.

New's case has direct impact on the United States' participation in such a military force, as it questions the constitutionality of U.S. soldiers subjecting themselves to the rule of a foreign authority -- a direct violation of the oath taken by all U.S. military personnel.

"Frankly, we don't even care which way they rule, we just want them to rule, so we can get on with the process," Daniel New said. "But the irony is that the Army has its tail in a wringer either way. If we lose, we go straight to the Supreme Court. They sure don't want that. If we win, then they are embarrassed, and the Army doesn't want that either."

Related stories:

Michael New goes to court

Michael New gets court date

Julie Foster is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.