Pablo Paredes' Statement to the Court

Talk to Tom Joad      

 Your Honor, and to all present, 

I'd like to state first and foremost that it has never been my intent or motivation to create a mockery of the navy or its judicial system. I do not consider military members adversaries. I consider myself in solidarity with all service members.

 It is this feeling of solidarity that was at the root of my actions.

 I don't pretend to be in a position to lecture anyone on what I perceive as facts concerning our current political state of affairs. I accept that it is very possible that my political perspective on this war could be wrong. I don't think rational people can ever engage in debate if neither is willing to accept the possibility that their assertions, no matter how researched, can be tainted with inaccuracy and falsehoods.

 I do believe that accepting this, in no way takes away from one's confidence in their convictions.

 I am convinced that the current War on Iraq is illegal.

 I am also convinced that the true causality for it lacked any high ground in the topography of morality. I believe as a member of the armed forces beyond having a duty to my chain of command and my President, I have a higher duty to my conscience and to the supreme Law of the land. Both of these higher duties dictate that I must not participate in any way, hands on or indirect, in the current Aggression that has been unleashed on Iraq.

 In the past, few months I have been continually asked if I regret my decision to refuse to board my ship and to do so publicly. I have spent hour upon hour reflecting on my decision, and I can tell you with every fiber of certitude that I posses, that I feel in my heart I did the right thing.

 This does not mean I have no regrets. I regret dearly exposing the families of Marines and Sailors to my protest. While I do not feel my message was wrong, I know that those families were facing a difficult moment. This moment was made in some ways more difficult by my actions and this pains me. That day on the pier I restrained myself from answering the calls of coward and even some harsher variations of the same term.

 I did so because I knew this wasn't the time to engage these families in debate. I felt that I became in many ways a forum in which to vent their fears and sadness and I did not want to turn that into a combative situation, in which the families were distracted more by our debate, than simply empowered by their ability to chastise my actions. All that being said I still feel my actions made some people very unhappy, and made others feel that I was taking away from their child's or their husband's goodbye. I regret this.

 I also regret the pain and stress I have caused those near and dear to me. I will not go into detail as I do not seek the pity of the court.

 I know that my lawyers feel it is ill-advised for me to say these things and I am aware of that.

 My lawyers have had a difficult time with me.

 They also felt it was ill advised for me to plead not guilty.

 It is this I truly want to explain, both to them and to the court. I realize I did not board the Bon Homme Richard on December 6th and that I left after ship personnel and pier Master At Arms refused to arrest me. Given these confessions one may find it hard to understand why would anyone admit to the action but not plead guilty to the crime.

 It is this question that has also been the topic of much reflection for me. I never denied my actions nor do I run from their consequences, but pleading guilty is more than admission of an action, it is also acceptance that that action was wrong and illegal.

 These are two things I do not accept.

 I feel, even with all the regrets and difficulties that have come as a result of my actions that they were in fact, my duty as a human being and as a service member.

 I feel in my mind and heart that this war is illegal and immoral. The moral argument is one that courts have little room for and has been articulated in my CO application, it is an argument that encompasses all wars as intolerable in my system of morals.

 The Legal argument is quite relevant, although motions filled and approved have discriminated against it to the point it was not allowed into this trial.

 I have long now, been an ardent reader of independent and in my opinion less corrupted forms of media, such as truthout.org, Democracy Now, books from folks like Stephen Zunes and Chalmers Johnson, articles from people like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein. These folks are very educated in matters of politics and are not on the payroll of any major corporate news programming, such as CNN or Fox News Network.

 They all do what they do for reasons other than money, as they could earn much more if they joined the corporate controlled ranks. I have come to trust their research and value their convictions, in assisting to form my own. They have all unanimously condemned this war as illegal, as well as, made resources available for me to draw my own conclusions.

 Resources like Kofi Annan's statements on how under the UN charter the Iraq War is illegal, resources like Marjorie Cohn's countless articles providing numerous sources and reasons why the war is illegal under international as well as domestic law.

 I could speak on countless sources and their arguments as to the illegality of the War on Iraq quite extensively but again, I don't presume to be in a position to lecture anyone here on law. I mean only to provide insight on my actions on Dec. 6th. I understood before that date very well what the precedent was for service members participating in illegal Wars.

 I read extensively on the arguments and results of Nazi German Soldiers as well as Imperial Japanese Soldiers in the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials, respectively.

 In all I read I came to an overwhelming conclusion supported by countless examples: that any soldier who knowingly participates in an illegal War can find no haven in the fact that they were following orders, in the eyes of International Law. Nazi aggression and Imperialist Japan are very charged moments of history and evoking them evokes many emotions and atrocities, so I want to be very clear that I am in no way comparing our current government to any of the historical counterparts, I am not comparing the leaders or the acts of their militaries. I am only citing the trials because they are the best example of judicial precedent for what a soldier/sailor is expected to do when faced with the decision to participate or refuse to participate in what he perceives is an illegal war.

 I think we would all agree that a service member must not participate in random unprovoked illegitimate violence, simply because he is ordered to.

 What I submit to you is that I am convinced that the current War is exactly that.

 So if there is anything I could be guilty of, it is my beliefs. I am guilty of believing this war is illegal. I am guilty of believing war in all forms is immoral and useless, and I am guilty of believing that as a service member I have a duty to refuse to participate in this War because it is Illegal.

 I do not expect the court to rule on the legality of this War, nor do I expect the court to agree with me, I only wish to express my reasons and convictions surrounding my actions.

 If these merit, the fullest extent of punishment that military law provides then I will accept this and live in peace with the fact that whether or not military law was on board with my actions I followed my conscience, and I will not, under any circumstances, become weary of doing what is right.

Back to Pablo's Story