Subscribe to Newsletter

To subscribe to our newsletter simply add your email below. A confirmation email will be sent to you!

Military Court to Review Order Forcing Soldiers to Serve Under United Nations

26 June 2012


(District of Columbia) – The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) has given the U.S. Army a deadline of July 2 to enter arguments concerning the court-martial of an American soldier who refused to wear a United Nations uniform.

In 1996 the Army court-martialed Specialist Michael New, a medic serving in the 3rd Infantry Division in Germany, after he refused to wear a United Nations uniform and deploy on a U.N. mission into Macedonia.  Mr. New was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge..

During his trial, New’s attorneys requested the Army to provide a classified executive order entitled  Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD25) that had been represented by the Army to New as one of the legal bases for the order issued by then-President Bill Clinton.   The Army prosecutor refused, whereupon the military judge ordered the prosecutor to show the classified document to New’s attorneys.  The prosecutor then produced a document representing it to be the classified version of PDD 25.  Unknown to the military judge and New’s defense counsel, the document produced was not, in fact, the classified PDD 25.  New did not discover this until 2009, well after the court-martial and appeals, when through a Mandatory Review process New got a hold of the real classified document.

After review of the classified document, New’s attorneys concluded that the document proves that New was right in alleging that President Clinton did not have the authority to make the deployment, for it was in conflict with the United Nations Participation Act of 1945.

“The Army had that document, and that document provided exculpatory evidence in favor of specialist New, and they withheld it,” Herb Titus, one of New’s attorneys said.  “Withholding evidence favorable to a defendant in a court-martial violates not only due process but military discovery rules.”

Because the evidence did not come to light until after New’s court-martial, and through no fault of New,  New has filed a Petition of Coram Nobis with the military courts, asking the courts to overturn his conviction and bad conduct discharge as the first step to restoring New’s military honor.

According to G. Gordon Liddy, who broke the case on national radio in 1995, “This is a threshold case involving questions never before answered concerning the Constitutional limitations on presidents and Congress, as well as questions about the American military and their role in international military actions.”

For more information:

Daniel New, Project Director
Michael New Action Fund
P. O. Box 100
Iredell, Texas 76649
Herbert Titus
370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4
Vienna, Virginia 22180
703- 356-5070

Research the story at:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref.]

Search Citizen Review ARCHIVES for keywords, stories


Search Citizen Review
(Current News - from Jan. 2012 to present)

Note about Searching this Website

If you wish to use this website to research by topic or keyword, there are TWO search engines - one for the current stories as posted in our Wordpress format, and the ARCHIVE search engines, which goes back in time to 1999.  Be sure to use both to access stories relative to your search that covers both time periods. - Ed.