The Orlando Sentinel, Tuesday, January 16, 1996
Somebody was reading wrong chapter in Michael New story

 

The actions surrounding Army Specialist Michael New s pending court-martial for refusing to wear United Nations insignia is more sinister than I thought. This young man, assigned to a unit in Germany, was told that his unit would be deployed to Macedonia as part of a United Nations mission. The unit would be required to carry UN identity cards, wear the UN beret or helmet, and the UN annband. The commander would be a Finnish officer. New requested a transfer or honorable discharge to avoid having to make an issue out of his opposition to serving under UN command. He was refused both, threatened with court-martial, and ridiculed.

Nevertheless, the young man stood firm and is now facing charges. Retired Col. Ronald D. Ray of Kentucky is representing New. The White House sent out a letter, justifying the order, signed by a colonel in the Department of the Army s criminal-law division. It turns out, according to both congressmen and New s attorney, that the letter contains a whopping - well, let s say, error.

"By statute - Section 7 of the United Nations Participation Act the president may detail U.S. military personnel to UN peacekeeping operations authorized under Chapter VI of the UN Charter to serve as observers, guards, or in any other noncombatant capacity," the letter states.

As we have come to expect in dealing with the Clinton administration, we find out that this statement is misleading.

The deployment to Macedonia, according to Ray and Reps. Roscoe G. Bartlett and Bob Stump, is not a Chapter VI deployment but a Chapter VII deployment, and here s the rub: Any assignment or deployment of U.S. troops under Chapter VII of the UN Charter requires PRIOR congressional approval. No such approval has ever been given. Furthermore, the Clinton administration must KNOW that the deployment is an unauthorized Chapter VII operation because there is a Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum acknowledging that it is Chapter VII, not Chapter VI.

Thus, not only is the Clinton administration wrong in ordering Michael New to Macedonia, it has violated the law in ordering all of the soldiers to serve there in the absence of congressional approval.

The Clinton administration further deliberately misleads the public by implying in the letter that soldiers in Macedonia remain under U.S. command. They do noL Brigadier General Julia Engstrom of the Finnish Army Command was quoted in the Marneland Crusader, a military paper, thus: "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"

The Americans report to Engstrom; Engstrom reports to the Security Council; and the Security Council does NOT report to the president. These young men are transferred to the authority of a foreign government and are under foreign command.

As Stump and Bartlett put it in their polite language, "Congress and the American people appear to have been misinformed about the Macedonia deployment." So why did Clinton state that this was a Chapter VI deployment when Security Council resolutions and JCS memoranda clearly state that is a Chapter VII deployment, requiring congressional approval?

Why has Clinton kept classified his Presidential Directive No. 25 involving U.S. peacekeeping participation? A president has no authority - I repeat, no authority - to legislate. So what is in this directive? And why, in this time of peace, does he keep it secret from the American people?

Bartlett has concluded that Michael New is right and that the Army is wrong, and that forcing him to wear UN insignia violates the U.S.

Constitution, U.S. statutes, and the Army s own regulations. If you want to help this kid, the address of the fund is:

Michael New Action Fund
P0 Box 100
Iredell, TX 76649