LaRouche Supports Army Specialist Michael New
in Case Challenging United Nations'
Supranational Powers


In August of 1995, Army Specialist Michael New was ordered to go to Macedonia as part of a deployment of U.S. forces which had been active in that area, under U.N. jurisdiction, for some time. New had no problem with the deployment, but questioned the additional orders that required him to don U.N. insigina, and carry a U.N. identification card--the latter, an apparently unprecedented requirement, and one which opens up serious questions of international law for a combatant who is exposed to hostile forces, and potential capture. New refused to wear the United Nations insignia, asserting that it interferred with his oath of uphold the U.S. Constitution. He was arrested and charged on Oct. 10, 1995. He was convicted at a Court Martial in January 1996, and received a bad conduct dismissal from the armed forces. New's attorney filed a habeas corpus motion with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D,C. on March 18, 1996. Democratic Presidential primary candidate Lyndon LaRouche issued the following statement of support for New today.


LEESBURG, Va., March 21, 1996--Acting in my function as a candidate for the Democratic Party's 1996 U.S. presidential nomination, I wish to announce that I am fully in support of the principal claim by Army Specialist Michael New.

There is no allowable margin for doubt, that Army Specialist New rightly judged himself to have received an unlawful order, directly contrary to his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Except in the instance of nullification of our Constitution by virtue of our republic's defeat in warfare, no branch or other agency of our government has the authority to subvert our national sovreignty by acts tantamount to accepting the United Nations Organization as 'The World Government.' To order any sworn officer of the United States to overthrow the sovreignty of the U.S.A. by means of such an unlawful order is a plainly impeachable act, tantamount to treason, whether actionable under the treason clause of our Constitution, or not.

Relative to these United States, there exists on this planet no higher governmental authority than the sovreignty of a nation-state republic.

Furthermore, in the cases of continuing sanctions against Iraq, and in its recent role in the Balkans, and on other counts, the Security Countil of the UNO has perpetrated past and continuing violations of the Nuremberg Code prohibiting "crimes against humanity."

In respect to the U.S. Department of Defense itself, I have already noted the unconstitutional features of its September 1995 policy statement entitled "United States Security for the Americas." My exposition on this subject is contained with a published, September 1995, policy paper of my campaign, The Blunder In U.S. National Security Policy. The DoD's cited paper contains numerous instances in which the authors of that policy statement proceeded in direct violation of principle of sovreignty of nation-state republics such as our own.

Respecting the DoD, I am obliged to add the following intelligence respecting the Defense Department's continuing, ten-year record of flip-flops on the issue of international narco-terrorism.

Operation Guatusa

During 1985, acting in consultation with representatives of the U.S. military, I assisted the government of Guatemala with technical advice on the matter of narco-terrorists operating within and athwart its national borders. The proximate outcome of this technical advice was one of the most successful anti-narco-terrorist operations of the 1980s, conducted entirely by sovreign forces of Guatemala, called "Operation Guatusa."

It had been my expectation, that the brilliant success of this operation would demonstrate to even hard-heads in the DoD that, with aid of proper equipment and technical assistance supplied by the U.S.A., the nations of Central and South America could combat the Colombia-centered international narco-terrorist operations within their territory. Instead, I found that, in collaboration with Vice-President George Bush, and others, the DoD had suddenly adopted the policy that "narco-terrorism does not exist." During that period, the Bush-directed "Iran-Contra" "focal-point"-style operations was working with the Colombia "narcos" against the narco-trafficking Communist terrorists gangs of Colohioombia. Today, the latest dispatches indicate, the DoD has reversed that late-1980s policy, this time to protect Colombia's Communist terrorists from the impact of U.S. anti-drug operations, still under the fraudulent, Bush-league presumption that "narco-terrorism" does not exist.

The DoD and State Department should reflect upon their sworn commitment to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and the perfect sovreignty of both the United States and of the nation-states with whom our republic has presumably friendly dealings. Specifically, all actions which are tantamount to accepting the UNO as "The World Government," should be considered as either unlawful, or simply nullified in other appropriate ways.