More than 16 months after his appeal to the nation's highest military tribunal, former Army Spc. Michael New filed a motion with the court demanding a decision on his contention that his bad-conduct discharge was unwarranted.

New was court-martialed in January 1996 after he 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. While stationed in Germany in 1995, New was among a few hundred troops President Clinton sent to Macedonia on a U.N. peacekeeping mission. When given the order, New said he would not serve a foreign power.

Former 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.

Henry L. Hamilton, New's attorney and a retired Army judge advocate general, told the court both Clinton's order to deploy troops to Macedonia and his order for soldiers to wear the U.N. uniform were unlawful. Deployment required congressional approval, according to Hamilton, and the U.N. uniform is not authorized by either the Department of Defense or the U.S. Army.

New appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces – 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, 2000, 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 to Sept. 30, he noted.

Hamilton filed a motion last week, asking the court to issue a ruling one way or the other in the case. Or, in lieu of a ruling, Hamilton asked the court "to issue an appropriate communication to the parties concerning the status of the appeal and the reasons for the decision's delay. ..."

Hamilton also implied in the brief that the court is damaging its own reputation by delaying the case without a single word of explanation for over a year.

"It is in the interests of justice and the appearance of justice for this Honorable Court to render its decision at this time," he wrote.

According to New's father, Daniel, "The Army will not admit, of course, that this is anything but a simple case of disobeying a direct and 'lawful order.' But most Americans instinctively realize that when all the evidence demonstrating that the order was unlawful is buried, and the jury is not allowed to even look at the evidence, then the hand of powerful forces is clearly at work. What stumps us is why there are still a few men in uniform who can't see that this soldier was standing up for all of them, and for the Constitution to which they all took the same oath."

If the court ultimately rules in favor of New, the soldier will have the opportunity to present his defense that the order to serve a foreign authority of the U.N. was illegal. In the event the defense is successful, New's court-martial will be reversed, leaving the Army with several alternatives, according to Daniel New, including simply terminating Michael New from the Army. However, if the court rules in favor of the Army, New's attorneys will petition the Supreme Court.

Related stories:

Michael New case still unresolved

Michael New goes to court

Michael New gets court date

Julie Foster is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.