CAAF Update - 2/2000
Editorial by Daniel New

Newspaper and television coverage has widely reported that SPC4 Michael New was in the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) with his attorneys LTC Henry Hamilton, AUS (Ret.) and appointed Army Captain Norm Zamboni, on 4 February, 2000, in the District of Columbia. There are numerous articles to which the reader may refer, including some on this website.

This is to elaborate and expand upon those articles and to keep you, the Support Team, well informed about what's happening and what it means. It also contains more editorial content than most of our publications.

This is the final appeal of the original-court martial, which was held over four years ago, in Schweinfurt, Germany. (So much for "a speedy trial.") The merits of our case were not before this court. The only question argued was whether the original court-martial was flawed when the judge, LTC Gary Jewell, refused to allow the evidence to be shown to the seven man panel (military equivalent to a jury).

Presenting one's evidence is, technically speaking, an "element of defense." When an element of defense is denied a defendent, then justice is not served, according to the Supreme Court in 1995, just months before this trial, by a 9-0 vote! (The Gauden Case.) So argued LTC Hamilton, and eloquently. He was outstanding in his presentation.

To the first-time viewer, this court (CAAF) like the Army Court of Criminal Appeals before it, are more like a free-for-all than a trial. While decorum is maintained, the carefully worded speeches of the lawyers are generally trashed within 60 seconds as one justice or another will ask a question, probing a weak point, trying to get clarification or even challenging each lawyer in turn. It's a very tense arena, in which each attorney must be on his toes, and which quite often turns devastating when an unanticipated question "ambushes" an otherwise prepared attorney.

So it seemed on February 4 with the Army's attorney, Captain Haywood, who is no doubt a competent attorney and a fine officer. But she seemed unnerved by the attack upon her contention that "life of the mission (of the Army) depends upon total obedience." Almost immediately a justice asked her to clarify the government's position with, "What about an illegal order?" After listening to some waffling, he repeated the question in very pointed terms and she admitted, "Yes, your honor. All orders must be obeyed." (Words to that effect. I'm quoting from memory here.)

LTC Hamilton, in his rebuttal, made it very clear that this question was settled at Nuremburg, and that while German soldiers had to take an oath to the Fuehrer, American soldiers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath of obedience to the Commander in Chief! The President is subject to the same Constitution that the Citizen Soldier is.

It sort of went downhill for the Army after that, and the dozens of military personnel who were in the room to observe, saw the brilliant "Hammerin' Hank Hamilton" at his finest. Hamilton is a legend in the making, and we're proud to have him represent Michael New.

If CAAF rules for the Army, upholding the court-martial, then the door is opened for Michael's attorneys to file a petition of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which is not obligated to accept it. This appears to be the only way this threshold case can be tried on its merits.

If CAAF rules against the Army, reversing or vacating the court-martial, then any number of options are available to them. First, they can order a new court-martial, and start all over. (Do NOT bet the farm on this option!) Or, they can just kick SPC New out of the Army for any reason, give him any type of discharge they want (but not worse than the original Bad Conduct Discharge) and completely dodge the fundamental legal issues that Michael New raised when he refused to be pressed into mercenary service under a foreign power.

One of the great ironies of this entire debacle which the Army brought upon itself, by denying SPC New a transfer, is that he is defending the integrity of their uniform and they are prosecuting him for it. As Col Ronald Ray (USMC, Ret.) put it, "SPC New is the first American ever to be court- martialed for wanting to serve his country exclusively."

Most soldiers resent being forced to go on United Nations deployments, but they resign themselves to their fate, rationalizing that they are getting extra money, and they can always use that! Many of them know it is fundamentally wrong, but don't have what it takes to "just say no" to tyranny. There are a couple of words that come to mind when people do that which they think is wrong for money.

This issue cuts across all political party lines and across the political spectrum. Supporters from the Left and the Right have met on this Constitutional question of whether Americans can be FORCED into foreign service. Both Republican and Democratic Parties have sold us down the river, and yet Americans in both parties are upset about it and supportive of national independence.

"In 1812, it was one of the major issues which sparked a war with Great Britain when British "press gangs" would "impress" American sailors into the British Navy. Today the Global Press Gangs operate out of the White House and the Pentagon, and Americans are being reduced to serfs in the New Feudalistic Order of the United Nations, sent to fight and die or become POW's -- not in the interest of their own country, but in the interest of the International Bankers, the International Power Brokers, and the International Bureaucrats of the United Nations.

This is a defining issue, what G. Gordon Liddy called, way back in August of 1995, "a threshold case which can only be decided in the Supreme Court."

It is axiomatic that if Americans can be forced to serve a foreign power, then they are not a free people. This is the very essence of national sovereignty, and make no mistake about it, the traitors in the White House and the State Department firmly believe and have repeatedly stated that the time for national sovereignty has passed, and we MUST continue to evolve toward a New World Order, a one-world government. We aren't making this up, we can show it to you in their publications, if you care to read it. It is the classical Marxist/Darwinian/Hegelian dialectical struggle being translated into political power by the most powerful forces in America. Communism has not died. It has metamorphasized, abandoning it's old power base of Russia, and taking on a new and more marketable form, alive and well in Washington, D.C. and New York City. Today it's called the Third Way, and you need to spend some time researching those who advocate such a philosophy today.

If we find that we are not a free country, then by definition, the American Republic has died. It that is the case, then the American People need to know it, because it will radically affect the way we relate to a government that is now over us, but was once under us. It will mean that a Revolution has occurred without a shot -- that the Republic has fallen from within -- the fear of many of our Founding Fathers.

New Hampshire had it right, once upon a time, and it's still their state motto: "Live free, or die!"