by Col. Ron Ray Chief Counsel for Spc. Michael G. New

[Colonel Ronald D. Ray, a practicing attorney in Kentucky, is an author and a highly decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart). He has served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, has served on a Presidential Commission concerned with military matters, and is a former Marine historian working on a book on the Vietnam War.]

Three thousand miles away from America's eastern shore in a military court room in Wuerzburg, Germany, a very serious and impressive 23- year-old Army Specialist with an exemplary record heard the verdict -- guilty. Only a few months ago his Army career looked bright and promising, but all that has changed. What happened to this young soldier? What was his crime?

Spc. Michael New respectfully declined an order to wear what his senior officers referred to as the United Nations "uniform." To Michael New, the order seemed extraordinary; to wear the badges, insignia and uniform of another government seemed wrong. Specialist New's battalion, stationed in Germany, was ordered last summer to prepare to ship out to Macedonia as part of a United Nations military mission. As part of the Macedonian mission which began in July 1993, New's U.S. Army infantry battalion would be required to wear the U.N. "baby blue" uniform; to serve for the first time in history under a Finnish U.N. officer; and the only identification document required in the mission area for U.S. soldiers is a U.N. identity card.

When Specialist New expressed his concerns to his sergeant about surrendering his U.S. uniform, his platoon commander threatened that if he did not wear the "U.N. uniform," he could go to jail, be court-martialed, and/or less-than-honorably discharged. A strong reaction, considering that Specialist New was just asking a simple peacetime uniform question in garrison: "By what authority are you ordering me to change my uniform to that of a foreign government?" The Army finally answered New's entry-level uniform question just before the deployment with mockery, attempting to coerce him into wearing the unauthorized uniform. "We wear the U.N. uniform," they said, "because it looks fabulous." On October 10, 1995, as ordered, Michael appeared at morning formation, but in his regulation historic U.S. Army Battle Dress Uniform, respectfully refusing to wear the "U.N. uniform," amid a sea of baby blue.

To Michael New, whose recruiter never mentioned U.N. Command or the "U.N. uniform" as he signed him up, a change in uniform and insignia is not a trivial matter. Michael swore the enlisted man's oath to Support and defend America and the Constitution. Changing uniforms constituted an involuntary transfer of allegiance from the United States to the United Nations. The transfer of American troops to "foreign commanders," who have not sworn the same allegiance to America, is also a significant change. Should American soldiers ever be required to wear the uniform of the Russian Army, salute their flag and serve under their commanders? Of course not. But to Michael New, wearing the uniform of the U.N. -- a foreign government by U.S. statute -- was no different than swearing allegiance to another nation.

When the Army failed to honestly answer New's question, 44 Congressional representatives joined with Specialist New. They wrote President Clinton a letter on October 6, 1995, in which they described Michael New a "a patriotic soldier with an exemplary record" and asked that the President provide the Congress legal justification for the oral orders to New to wear the "U.N. uniform." President Clinton has not provided the legal justification -- because he can't. There is no legal justification: Michael New is right. The Army is wrong. The "U.N. uniform" is unauthorized and not regulation.

Spc. New tripped over a grunt-level E 81 uniform order and found himself nose to nose with President Clinton! New's lawyers found in researching the unlawfulness of the order that the entire deployment to Macedonia is unauthorized, and that Bill Clinton misled Congress in order to deploy our sons and daughters -- without getting the required prior approval from Congress.

President Clinton's order placing U.S. soldiers at the disposal of the U.N. Security Council, as well as the order conveyed to Spc. New requiring U.S. soldiers in "Task Force Able Sentry" to wear the U.N. Uniform and be deployed to Macedonia at the "strategic direction" of the United Nations Security Council and to serve under foreign United Nations commanders, is unauthorized and unconstitutional because such an order: (a) violates the Constitutional provision in Article 1 Section 9 requiring prior Congressional approval; (b) violates U.S. statutes which do not authorize the involuntary wearing of

any such foreign insignia, badges or UN uniform; and (c) violates the U.S. Army's own Wear and Appearance of Army Uniform regulations.

The Presidential order to Macedonia also violates The United Nations Participation Act of 1945. In letters to the Congress, Clinton described the Macedonian deployment as a U.N. Chapter VI mission. However, twenty-seven U.N. Security Council Resolutions dealing specifically with the U.N. Macedonian deployment designate the mission under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which specifically requires prior Congressional approval -- approval which has never been obtained.

You may ask, "Can't the President, as Commander-in-Chief, simply order our troops to do whatever he wants?" No! These unlawful orders violate U.S. laws and threaten the Constitutional limits upon Presidential authority and may constitute impeachable acts. Broken and ignored laws ultimately make a country of men, not of laws.

American troops are increasingly deployed across the globe for questionable U.N. interests. Michael New's stand has illustrated for the American people how far the government has gone in overturning the historical role and use of America's military. It is unlawful to subject U.S. soldiers to a multilateral organization, force them to wear unauthorized U.N. uniforms, or involuntarily transfer them to serve under the command of foreign U.N. officers -- all of which have been done in this case without the consent of the people's house, the United States Congress.

As word of Michael New's stand for America and the Constitution spreads across the country, millions of Americans are standing with Spc. New to say "enough is enough."

The fix for this problem is not as simple as voting out the current President. There are many more where he came from on both sides of the aisle. The next President and those elected to Congress must be challenged by "we the people" to faithfully uphold and defend the foundation upon which our liberty rests -- the Constitution -- and to execute the laws of the United States, which include the U.N. Participation Act of 1945. As Michael New appeals the court-martial decision, both in the military courts and in the federal courts, a bipartisan group of Congressmen have already introduced House Concurrent Resolution 134 to nullify the conviction, pardon New and fully recognize that he disobeyed an unlawful order. They have acted because they know Spc. Michael New was right to question an unlawful order and committed no crime except to love his country more than the United Nations.

Spc. Michael New's valiant stand has given all liberty-loving independent Americans an important and timely opportunity to rally around and stand in the fight to support and defend our Constitution against all foreign and domestic enemies. This young American soldier has made his allegiance clear: He is not a U.N. soldier. New is standing against the same elite global game of princes as our founders did. New is "on the point," risking his life and liberty like Americans before him since 1775, while we enjoy the comforts of home. Now is the time for you to join with New. Call your representatives and ask them where they stand. Tell them, like Michael New, you have declared independence -- not isolationism -- and that you expect them to stop the steady erosion of America's sovereignty and stop the drive toward the utopian U.N. ideas of global "interdependence" and "intervention."

Historical source: speakout.html