“racist, sexist, et contra spiritu Sodoma,”rnFAIR and its allies will come for thernsmaller fish, and they will never be satisfiedrnuntil there is no longer anyone left tornthink a free thought. This means you.rnMark Racho writes from New York City.rnMILITARYrnFalse Colorsrnby Katherine DaltonrnThe Case of Michael New Until last summer, Michael New wasrnan unknown 22-year-old Armyrnmedic, three years into his eight-year enlistmentrncontract. But in August, Newrnlearned that he and his battalion werernbeing assigned to Macedonia, wherernthey would serve under the operationalrncontrol of the United Nations commander,rnand wear the baby blue U.N. beretrnand a U.N, patch on their uniforms. Atrnthat news this missionary’s son fromrnConroe, Texas, balked. How could it bernlegal for him to wear a foreign uniform,rnhe asked his captain, and serve under foreignrncommand?rnLt. Col. Stephen R. Layfield, who is inrncharge of the battalion, reacted byrnpromising New he would face a courtmartialrnif he disobeyed. Ordered to fallrnout in the beret and patch on Octoberrn10, New, alone among the 550 membersrnof his battalion, did not. He wore hisrnU.S. Army combat dress uniform withoutrnany additions. In response, Lt. Col.rnLayfield made good on his promise: thernArmy held a hearing on New’s case inrnWuerzburg, Germany, in late January.rnNew was found to have refused a lawfulrnorder and was given a bad conduct discharge.rnIn some ways the sentence was lenient;rnhe could have been jailed. Instead,rnwhile his battalion went to Macedonia,rnNew remained in Germany,rnworking with full pay as a file clerk andrnwaiting for the review of his eourtmartial.rnAs this article went to press, the conveningrnauthority who will review thatrncourtmartial, Maj. Gen. MontgomeryrnMeigs, had not yet done so. If Meigsrnupholds the courtmartial. New will berngiven a discharge that will blot his record.rnHe will also lose the right ever again tornwear his U.S. uniform.rnHis lead attorney, a former deputy assistantrnsecretary of defense (under Bush)rnand a retired Marine colonel named RonrnRay, said that “we’ve never had a soldierrncharged with a crime, courtmartialed,rnmuch less convicted, for declining tornwear the badges, insignia and uniform ofrnanother government—because up untilrnBill Clinton, all the way back to thernfounders, we operated under the principlernthat a man can’t serve two masters.”rnClothes make the man—at least that isrnwhat Michael New thinks. Acting on thernadvice of his attorneys, who say it is inappropriaternfor New to criticize the ArmedrnForces while he is still enlisted, New doesrnnot grant interviews. But in a writtenrnstatement dated September 19, 1995,rnand presented to the court in Germany,rnNew said:rnI interpret the wearing of a uniform,rnor the accouterments of arnuniform, as a sign of allegiance andrnfaithfulness to the authority orrnpower so signified or which issuesrnthat uniform. I am an Americanrnwho was recruited for and voluntarilyrnjoined the U.S. Army to serve asrnan American soldier. I am not arncitizen of the United Nations. Irnam not a United Nations FightingrnPerson. I have never taken an oathrnto the United Nations, but I haverntaken the required oath to supportrnand defend the Constitution of thernUnited States of America.rnNew read the Army Uniform regulationsrnand “thought the uniform wasrnunauthorized,” Ron Ray said. WhilernArmy regulations spell out in detail whatrncan and should be worn, nowhere isrnthere a mention of the U.N, beret orrnpatch. According to Ray, that makes thernU.N. accouterments illegal. The Army’srnlawyers conceded in a January 9, 1996,rnStipulation of Fact for the courtmartialrnthat the U.N. beret and patch have notrnbeen approved, as required by their ownrnregulations.rnThis would seem to bolster New’srncase. Army spokesman Lt, Col, BillrnHarkey countered, however, that accordingrnto uniform regulations, “A commanderrnin charge of units on a maneuver mayrnprescribe the uniform to be worn withinrnthe maneuver area.” Does that mean herncould ask his soldiers to wear anything?rn”Basically, yes,” Harkey replied. But, hernadded, the larger issue is that “when thernsenior leadership, I mean the Presidentrnof the United States and our U.N. ambassador,rnsigned up to take part in thisrnmission, then part of that included wearingrnthese accouterments on the uniformrnthat will identify these folks as part ofrnthe U.N. operation.” In other words, thernverbal order made by New’s captain andrnlieutenant colonel stems directly fromrnthe President’s authority,rnRay’s response is that the President’srnauthority does not exist. While New’srncourtmartial centered around his refusalrnto obey an order, the defense team’s legalrnarguments are much broader. First,rnCongress and not the President has thernright to change Army uniform regulations,rnunder the constitutional divisionrnof powers. Second, a President shouldrnnot be able to force an American volunteerrnto serve under foreign command.rn”The President does not have the authorityrnto involuntarily transform anrnAmerican fighting man into a U.N. soldier,”rnRay said. And third, according tornRay, President Clinton does not have legalrnjustification to send troops to the formerrnYugoslavia without congressionalrnapproval “as Commander-in-Chief orrnunder the Foreign Assistance Act or underrnthe U.N. Participation Act or thernU.N. Charter or the U.N. Guidelines.”rnIn the courtmartial pretrial hearing,rnRay made all three of these assertions.rnHe did not have a chance to discussrnthem before the hearing panel, however.rnThe military judge refused to admitrnthese arguments and declared the lieutenantrncolonel’s order lawful, leaving thernsix-member panel to decide only thernlimited question of whether or not Newrnhad disobeyed the order—which ofrncourse he had.rnNew’s battalion in Macedonia (the 1strnbattalion, 15 th infantry) has been underrnthe operational command of Brig. Gen.rnJuha Engstrom, a Finn. When Newrnserved in a United Nations operation inrnKuwait, he was under American command.rnHe did not object to serving inrnMacedonia, Ray said. He objected tornhaving a foreign uniform and foreignrnJULY 1996/41rnrnrn