Abused By Illusions

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

US District Court rules against Michael New

Well now if the following legal precedent stands it looks as though the courts themselves are moving to dismantle the carefully designed checks and blances of the founding fathers. Further, why should we pay the judicary if they can't get involved in such matters.

Since congress no longer reads nor debates significant legislation (i.e. Patriot I &II) why not have all cases tried before the legislative branch. They can't have much else to do and since the judiciary is now deferring to them anyway it is what we have by proxy anyway. Sorry folks but the illusions that the ruling elite of this country have fed us for so long just keep crumbling with their ever pronouncement.

C.I. Abramson

23 December 2004

(District of Columbia) - U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman dismissed the case of former Army Specialist Michael New yesterday, stating that he would "not second-guess the military courts".

In 1996, New was convicted by court-martial of disobeying an order to wear a United Nations uniform and then serve under a general officer from another country (Finland) on a "peacekeeping" mission into Macedonia. New contends the uniform was unauthorized, the deployment was illegal, and the chain of command was unconstitutional. He was not allowed to present any evidence at his trial to support his arguments. That incident alone raised the objections from many, both inside and outside the military community.

After the military appeals ran their course, New filed his present action seeking collateral review of the court-martial conviction in the US District Court, and now Judge Friedman's adverse ruling sets to stage to appeal to the US Court of Appeals.

At the heart of Judge Friedman's ruling against New is the court's conclusion that, while former President Clinton's action deploying New to Macedonia under United Nations command may have violated the law and the constitution, it is not for the courts to say whether a statute was broken or the constitution was violated in this case. Rather, Judge Friedman reasoned, in matters of "war" it's for Congress, not the courts, to protect the rights of American soldiers who are illegally and unconstitutionally deployed in U.N. operations

Read the full story here!

Posted by CIAbramson at 1:21 PM