Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
I'm not sure why you're pissed at the judge, willravel. Declaration of war, legal or illegal, falls under the jurisdiction of the US Congress, not the US Military. <b>It would be a conflict of interest tantamount to mutiny for a military judge to in effect overrule Congress</b>, thus the mistrial. Do you see it differently?
It looks real bad that this guy: 1) has a Democratically connected dad who dodged Nam for the same reasons, 2) Joined the military after the war had already started.
|
I've posted details of the 2005 Paredes court martial before, in threads in this forum, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2120991&highlight=klant#post2120991">here</a> and <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2161568&postcount=51">here</a>, of the relevant quote from US Navy Military Judge, Lt. Commander Bob Klant. Maybe if you see it in the context of the trial transcript segment that follows, (I abbreviated the prosecution's cross examination...) and the background news reporting, MJ Klant's comments, backed by his decision to give Paredes a much more lenient sentence than prosecutors asked for, you might not post contrary opinion to the facts which I post....over and over. Maybe we can disengage from this pattern of repetition...meticulous, well supported posts, followed by your unsupported opinions.....
Quote:
http://www.nlgmltf.org/PAREDESTranscript.pdf
VERBATIM
RECORD OF TRIAL
OF
PAREDES PABLO E. 075-70-6402 FC3/E-4
(LAST NAME) (FIRST) (MIDDLE) (SSN) (RANK/RATE)
NAVY REGION SOUTHWEST TRANSIENT
UNITED STATES NAVY PERSONNEL UNIT, SAN DIEGO, CA
(ARMED FORCE) (UNIT or ORGANIZATION)
BY
SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL
CONVENED BY COMMANDING OFFICER
NAVY REGION SOUTHWEST TRANSIENT PERSONNEL UNIT
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92136-5070
TRIED AT
SOUTHWEST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURTHOUSE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92136-5025
ON
6 APRIL 2005
4, 11, 12 MAY 2005
....[The court-martial was called to order at 1614 hours, 11 May 2005.]
MJ: The court is called to order. All parties who were present
before are once again present.
Defense?
CDC: We call Professor Marjorie Cohn.
ATC: Sir, we would renew our objection.
MJ: Noted.
MARJORIE COHN, civilian, was called as a witness for the defense, was
sworn, and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the trial counsel:
Q. Ma'am, can you please state your name and spell your last
name.
A. Marjorie Cohn, C-O-H-N.
<b>231</b>
Q. And what town and state do you live in?
A. San Diego, California.
Q. And you're a civilian?
A. Pardon me?
Q. You're a civilian?
A. Yes.
ATC: Defense counsel is going to ask you some questions.
WIT: Thank you.
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:
Q. Good afternoon, Professor Cohn.
A. Good afternoon.
MJ: Excuse me, Counsel, before you proceed.
Bailiff, could you please adjust the screen so that the
court could view the witness.
[The bailiff did as directed.]
WIT: I think I'm too short.
MJ: And Commander Petit [ph], could you please assist him.
CDC: Your Honor, while they're doing that, I had--Professor
Cohn has a lengthy resume. I'm going to go through it a little bit
in terms of qualifying her as a witness and I've had copies made for
the court, for counsel, if Your Honor's interested. I don't know
that it would even need to be marked as an exhibit, but I certainly
would provide it to the court.
232
MJ: If counsel could provide a copy to the court, it will be
marked as an appellate exhibit next in order.
[The reporter marked the document as AE X. Copies of AE X were
provided to the military judge and trial counsel.]
MJ: And, government, have you had an opportunity to review
Professor Cohn's resume?
ATC: Yes, sir.
MJ: And in what area of expertise or knowledge would you be
proffering the witness?
CDC: International law, international human rights.
MJ: Government, understanding your standing objection to the
relevancy of this testimony, do you have any objection to the court
recognizing Professor Cohn's education and training in the area of
international law and human rights?
ATC: Sir, before recognizing her as an expert witness, I'd like
the opportunity to voir dire.
MJ: Certainly.
ATC: Whenever the court sees fit.
MJ: In light of that and the court's acceptance of the resume,
would defense counsel have any objection at this point with the
government apparently accepting the resume but wanting to take the
witness on voir dire as to foundational aspects?
CDC: No. No objection.
233
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
Questions by the assistant trial counsel:
Q. Good evening.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. I noticed in your resume you have published a number of
articles. Is it correct that besides the Thomas Jefferson School of
Law Law Review that on your resume there were no articles in another
law school's law review for an article about international law?
A. No, that's not true. I published an article in the
Virginia Journal of International Law, the Georgia Journal of
International Law, the----
Q. I'm sorry. None of the other schools' law reviews. I'm
not stating actually law journals, but----
A. Those are considered law reviews. They're specialty law
reviews, but they are law reviews, and Virginia is one of the most
prestigious law reviews, specialty law reviews for international law
in the country.
Q. Professor Cohn, you're a political activist, correct?
A. That is correct, and it's my understanding that that's the
duty of every citizen in a democracy to be a political activist.
Q. And many of your publications have also had a political
slant?
234
A. Political slant?
Q. I mean some----
A. I do look at the law in a political context, yes.
Q. You've published articles including one called "Oil, Weapon
of Mass Destruction"?
A. Correct.
Q. The Emperor [inaudible].
A. Correct.
Q. "The Schwarzenegger Second Comparison"?
A. I don't think I published an article about Schwarzenegger,
to my memory.
Q. Did you--for the L.A. Times did you write an article----
A. Oh, that was a letter to the editor, yes. Yes.
Q. Did you publish a piece called "Close the Concentration
Camp at Guantanamo"?
A. Correct.
Q. And you published one called "Oil Interests May Drive
Policy in Bush/Cheney Administration"?
A. Yes, and I'm very proud of that because that was long
before the Iraq war, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I think I predicted
it quite accurately.
Q. So it's safe to say that these articles have been decidedly
critical of the Bush administration?
A. The Bush administration's policies for the most part, yes.
235
Q. And you have never been to Iraq, is that correct?
A. Correct.
ATC: Thank you.
MJ: Government, any objection?
ATC: One moment, sir. No objection, sir.
MJ: Without objection, the court would recognize Professor Cohn
as possessing expertise in international law and human rights.
CDC: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION [RESUMED]
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:
Q. I'd like to start out with an event that was hosted at your
law school within the last couple of months involving Pablo Paredes.
All right. Were you at that event?
A. I was.
Q. And did you--in fact, I think you might have hosted that
event?
A. Yes.
Q. And so you heard Mr. Paredes speak throughout that event?
A. I did.
Q. And, in fact, I think you spoke at least in response to
some questions about international law at that event?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. And were there discussions about why Petty
236
Officer Paredes did what he did on December 6th at that event?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there some discussion about a gentleman by the name
of Adolph Eichman at that event?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you happen to recall Petty Officer Paredes discussing
Eichman at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And could you just--well, let me ask it this way. Did
Petty Officer Paredes receive some criticism at that event for making
those comments?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Mr. Paredes do anything to alleviate people's
concerns about that?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What was that?
ATC: Sir, I'm going to object on hearsay.
MJ: Objection overruled.
WIT: Yes. There were a couple of references to Eichman very
briefly in the context of a much larger presentation, and my
recollection is that he said that if he were to participate in this
illegal war in Iraq where war crimes were being committed, that he
could be equated to Eichman and he said, "I don't want to be a war
237
criminal. I don't want to be prosecuted as a war criminal."
Q. All right. And beyond that did he discuss--did he say
anything with regard to the President Bush administration or the
carrying out of the war of Iraq in comparison to the Nazi atrocities?
A. Yes, Eichman or the charge of transporting the Jews to the
ovens to be killed. And I think that what I got from Mr.--Pablo's
comments about Eichman is that if he were to participate in
transporting marines to Iraq who may be in a position to commit war
crimes, then he would be acting similar to Eichman. But he also said
that he was not--he was not equating the war in Iraq with the
Holocaust.
Q. In fact, on the contrary, he said it was very different;
was that his comment?
A. Yes, he did. He did.
Q. Just focusing for a second based on your understanding of
international law and international treaties, is it accurate that
someone who is not carrying out a war crime might nonetheless be
responsible if they're involved on some level in planning or
delivering people or anything of that nature?
A. Yes. In fact, let me get the----
ATC: Sir, the witness seems to be basing her testimony on some
documents that----
MJ: At this time the court would direct the witness to please
238
place any documents you have carried with you on the top of the
witness box and please do not refer to them until such----
WIT: I can give him a copy of it.
MJ: Not until such time as the court would allow you to do so.
Defense Counsel, would you care to lead the witness through
whatever documents that she may have?
CDC: And if I may, Your Honor, I think this is the same
document that we provided to the court and to counsel.
Q. It's an outline that Professor Cohn prepared for your
testimony today, is that correct?
A. Yes. That's what I'm referring to, and also counsel does
have a copy of it. That's all I'm referring to.
ATC: And, sir, I'd object to her using that as a crutch for her
testimony. She's been qualified as----
MJ: Well, the court would entertain such objection when that
becomes obvious that that is what the witness is intending to do.
ATC: Yes, sir.
WIT: There is a reference in the field manual, in the Army
Field Manual, 2710, Article 500, about complicity. If I may just
read the section, it says: "Conspiracy, direct incitement"----
ATC: Sir, objection.
MJ: Objection sustained at this point.
Q. Let's hold off on that for a moment. At the law school
239
event that you hosted, did FC3 Paredes make any comments about his
belief in the legality of the war?
A. Yes. He said he thought that the war in Iraq was illegal
and he thought it was an illegal war of aggression and he thought war
crimes were committed in Iraq and he was very concerned about the
deaths of, at that time, more than a thousand U.S. service men and
women and thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Q. Let's just focus for a second on the statement that the war
is illegal. Was that--was there a statement or statements made at
that time that the war was illegal, in violation of any principles of
international law?
A. Yes. The United Nations Charter.
Q. As an expert, do you have some familiarity with the United
Nations Charter?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you just briefly describe what that is.
A. Yes. The Charter of the United States, Article 2, forbids
the use of force by any member country of the United Nations except
in two instances. First, under Article 51, in self-defense,
collective or individual self-defense when there is an imminent
threat of attack against a member state of the U.N.; or, under
Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter, when a Security Council
240
agrees to the use of force by one of the member countries.
Q. Now, absent those two exceptions would any act of war be in
violation of the United Nations Charter?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the United States bound by the United Nations Charter?
A. Yes. It is a treaty ratified by the United States and,
therefore, under Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy
Clause is part of the supreme law of the land.
Q. Treaties carry the force of law?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. And so if the United States were involved in a war that did
not fall under either self-defense or authorized by the Security
Council of the United Nations, would that be an unlawful war?
A. Yes, it would. And under the Nuremberg Principles, which
are enshrined in the Army Field Manual, that would constitute a crime
against peace, a war of aggression.
ATC: Sir, I'm going to object to the line of questioning. I
believe in an earlier ruling you said that the witness' opinion on
the legality of the war would not be appropriate, that her----
MJ: That not appropriate to the point that the court would be
asked to rule on the legality of the war, only to provide the basis
for any of Petty Officer Paredes' opinions. At this point, the court
does not feel as though the defense has violated that ruling,
241
however, the court would entertain any objections from the government
at such point you believe that the defense has strayed outside the
boundaries of the ruling.
ATC: Yes, sir.
CDC: I don't believe I've even had her opinion yet on the
legality of the war. We may get to that.
Q. Focusing on the first exception, self-defense, is there--
without commenting on the truthfulness of the assertion, is there an
assertion that has been made that the particular war in Iraq and the
occupation of Iraq was not carried out in self-defense of the United
States?
A. Yes. Iraq--since the invasion of Kuwait 11 to 12 years
before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq had not invaded any country and
Iraq was not a threat to any country, including the United States.
Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and that was clear;
many weapons inspectors said that at the time. There was no link
between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein's regime or al-Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein's regime. There was no imminent threat of any attack against
the United States or any other member of the United Nations. And,
therefore, it was not carried out in self-defense under Article 51 of
the United Nations Charter.
Q. You mentioned no weapons of self-destruction--of mass
destruction, pardon me, and no link to al-Qaeda. Were those
justifications that were cited in any act of Congress permitting
242
combat operations to be carried out under the authority of the
President?
A. Yes. It was a----
ATC: Sir, I'm just going to ask the court to ask the witness
whatever she keeps looking down, if she has any----
WIT: It's the same thing you have exactly.
ATC: And ask her not to refer to--look at her documents. I
actually ask that they be taken away from the witness stand until
she's----
MJ: I would direct the witness at this time to please place the
document face down; and if you need to refer to it to refresh your
recollection----
WIT: Okay.
MJ: ----the court would allow you to do so.
ATC: And I'd also object that the last question was leading and
to relevance.
MJ: Objection as to leading is overruled. However, it does
sound to the court as though we're starting to get into the weeds of
this legal or political analysis and it would quickly prove not
helpful to the issues before the court.
Q. As part of your expertise in international law, do you
review or read other treatises, articles, statements made by people
who are intellectual in international politics?
243
A. Yes.
Q. And do these sorts of people, whether they're scholars,
world leaders, do they make comments about--have they written about
the legality of the war?
A. Yes.
Q. And has this position been articulated--again I'm not
asking whether you agree or disagree with it, but is this a position
that's been articulated in the international law field that the war
was not carried out for self-defense?
A. Yes. In fact, Ann Marie Slaughter, who is a professor----
ATC: Objection, sir.
MJ: Basis?
ATC: The same grounds, relevance.
MJ: Objection overruled.
WIT: Yes. She actually is of the opinion that the war is
lawful. She's the president of the American Society of International
Law and at not its last meeting but the meeting before she said in
the introductory remarks that 90 percent of the members of the
American Association of International Law thought that the Iraq war
was illegal.
ATC: Sir, we'd also object to that on hearsay grounds.
MJ: Defense response?
CDC: As an expert I think it's something that she can rely upon
within her field.
244
ATC: Sir, she's not relying on it to form an opinion of her
own. She's just putting it out there as a fact.
MJ: The court would accept the statement simply as one basis
for the witness' opinion and not as substantive evidence in itself.
Q. Turning to the second grounds that makes war permissible
under the United Nations Charter, that would be a war that's
authorized by the Security Council. Can you say whether the United
Nations Security Council has authorized the United States’ invasion
and occupation of Iraq.
A. No. In fact, just before the invasion of Iraq, the United
States tried mightily to get the Security Council to pass a
resolution authorizing the war. The United States, Britain and Spain
tried to get a resolution through and were unable to. No, it was not
authorized by the Security Council.
Q. In light of what you said about self-defense and
authorization from the Security Council, in your opinion, is there a
basis in fact for an individual who believes and states that they've
come to the conclusion that the war is unlawful?
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. Is there a basis in fact for someone having the opinion
that the war--the United States' participation in the war is unlawful
under international law?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Is this, by the way, an opinion that is an out-there
245
opinion that's not shared by very many people?
A. No. It's a prevailing opinion among international law
scholars.
Q. Are you familiar with polls within the United States as to
what the polls are saying as to the public's belief in the validity
of the war?
ATC: Objection. Relevance, foundation. She's not been put
forward as an expert on----
MJ: Defense, objection as to the relevance? I have no idea
what the witness' answer may be, but whether it's a high number or a
low number how would the opinion of others make it more or less right
of an opinion?
CDC: Well, it just goes to the reasonable basis for the opinion
that's shared by----
MJ: Because more people believe that it must be true?
CDC: That it's--well, it would have more tendency, in fact, to
be true, not that the majority is always correct, but----
MJ: Objection's sustained.
Q. You mentioned previously that when Pablo Paredes was
speaking at the law school he discussed the war being--involving war
crimes.
A. Yes.
Q. I’d like to [inaudible]. Is there some kind of
international standard on what defines a war crime?
246
A. Yes. We have a U.S. statute called the war crimes statute
which defines war crimes as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,
and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions include torture, inhuman
treatment, willful killing, the denial of the right to a fair trial
and a few others, but those are some of them.
Q. And is there international law or international treaties
that do the same thing?
A. That define what war crimes are?
Q. Right.
A. Well, there is--there are treaties that we have ratified
such as the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment which prohibits extraordinary
rendition, which means sending prisoners to other countries where
they're likely to be tortured. There's also the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, another treaty we ratified,
therefore, part of the supreme law of the land which prohibits
arbitrary detentions.
Q. All right. Now, these things that you've mentioned, did
you say we're--the United States, as signatory to these treaties, is
bound and its troops are bound to follow these laws, correct?
A. Not just signatories but ratifiers. You can sign a treaty,
but until you ratify it, you don't become a party to the treaty. The
United States has actually ratified these treaties I've mentioned.
Q. All right.
247
A. Which means that we are bound to follow them, not just
under international law, but also under U.S. law on its Supremacy
Clause. They are not just international law, they are also part of
the U.S. domestic law.
Q. Are you aware of allegations of conduct by the United
States and some of its troops that would qualify as war crimes with
regard to the occupation and the invasion of Iraq?
ATC: Objection. Relevance. Sir, the question is also very
vaguely asked. Do you have any--have you heard of any allegations.
MJ: I believe it's sufficiently specific with the reference to
definition of war crimes as already defined. Objection overruled as
to the awareness of allegations, although the specific basis for that
awareness would not be helpful to the court.
CDC: All right. Let me try to rephrase it.
Q. For example, you're familiar with the allegations that took
place revolving around the detention of Iraqi civilians in the Abu
Ghraib prison, correct?
A. Yes. I've written about 22 articles about torture and war
crimes by the U.S. Government in Iraq.
Q. And, in fact, you're aware that individuals have pled
guilty to what would constitute war crimes----
A. Yes.
Q. ----with regard to those incidents at Abu Ghraib. Would
that--would those actions and the admissions to those actions
248
constitute war crimes?
A. They would, yes.
Q. Would you be aware or could you tell the court about other
instances of conduct that constitutes war crimes with regard to the
invasion or occupation or Iraq.
A. Yes, beginning with the shock and awe, the first dropping
of 2,000 pound bombs on civilian areas constituted willful killing
and a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. The forced deportation
of 200,000 citizens of Fallujah and the retaliatory attack on
Fallujah and the destruction of a hospital----
ATC: Sir, I'm going to object on foundation.
MJ: Specifically what's the objection as to foundation?
ATC: The witness is making some factual allegations without
saying the basis of her knowledge for those factual allegations.
MJ: The court doesn't--objection overruled at this point,
although I believe the witness has provided sufficient examples for
the court to be able to assess the witness' testimony.
Q. All right. These things that you've described, these have
been widely reported in the press, correct?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. This is something that any American citizen who would read
the newspaper would have information available about this particular
type of conduct?
A. Correct.
249
Q. So when an individual such as Pablo Paredes makes a
statement that in his opinion participating in the war by
transporting troops to Iraq by the participating in war crimes, do
you, as an expert, feel that there's a basis for that opinion?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And would that be a reasonable basis----
A. Yes.
Q. ----or a person to be reasonable in making that assertion?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, just finally, do you have any opinions about the
rights or responsibilities of an individual to refuse to participate
in war crimes or an unlawful war?
A. Yes. My understanding is that people in the military have
a duty to obey lawful orders and a duty to disobey unlawful orders or
they will be prosecuted. That comes from the Nuremberg Tribunal.
It's enshrined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well.
Q. All right. If an individual has come to the conclusion,
right or wrong, that their participation in transporting United
States marines to Iraq to seek combat in the occupation of Iraq would
constitute, say, aiding and abetting in potential war crimes, would
that individual, in your opinion, have the right or the
responsibility to decline to participate?
A. Yes.
Q. And could you explain why.
250
A. Well, as I started to say before, in the Uniform Code of
Military Justice it's not just the commission of war crimes or crimes
against the peace or crimes against humanity that is punishable, but
also complicity in the commission of those crimes. In criminal law
parlance, we call it "aiding and abetting." So even if someone were
not to personally go over to Iraq and commit war crimes, if that
person were transporting someone over to Iraq to commit war crimes,
they would be liable for the war crimes just the same as the person
who actually committed the war crimes.
CDC: Thank you very much, Your Honor. That's all the questions
I have.
MJ: Government.
ATC: Thank you, sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the assistant trial counsel:
Q. Professor Cohn, you've never spoken to--you never spoke to
the accused before we went missing movement, did you?
A. No.
Q. You've never served in the military, correct?
A. No. My father, my husband, many of my family members have,
but I have not.
Q. You're an academic?
A. I've actually been a criminal defense attorney and a labor
<b>251</b>
....And, by the way, the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War has
been universally discredited among the overwhelming majority of
international law scholars----
Q. So it's every seaman----
A. ----as violative of the U.N. Charter.
Q. So every seaman recruit who shared your opinion would have
a duty not to serve in those wars?
A. Correct.
ATC: Thank you.
MJ: Defense?
CDC: Unless the court has any questions, I don't have any
further questions.
<h3>MJ: No. I believe the government has successfully demonstrated
a reasonable belief for every service member to decide that the wars
in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal to fight it.</h3>
Thank you very much for your testimony. You're excused
from the courtroom at this time.
WIT: May I stay, Your Honor, and listen?
MJ: Subject to recall?
TC: Not from the government.
MJ: Yes. Yes, ma'am, you may take a seat in the back of the
courtroom. However, the court will be recessing for the day.
WIT: Oh, okay. Thank you.
<b>264</b>
[The witness was excused and withdrew from the courtroom.]....
|
<b>News reporting of background of the preceding court martial segment:</b>
Quote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGNECVOEI1.DTL
BAY AREA
Anti-war sailor lifts foes of Iraq policy
Sentence for defying deployment orders less than expected
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, May 28, 2005
....Paredes enlisted in the Navy soon after high school and rose to the rank of third class petty officer. In recent years, he began reading the works of MIT linguistics professor and war critic Noam Chomsky and other liberals who questioned the Iraq war's legal and moral justification.
In Dec. 6, 2004, the day he was scheduled to sail to the Persian Gulf, he showed up at the pier wearing a T-shirt that read, "Like a cabinet member, I resign," then held a press conference.
The Navy charged him with missing ship movement and unauthorized absence and sought a punishment of nine months' confinement, a bad conduct discharge and reduction in rank to E-1, the Navy's lowest.
Paredes explained to the military judge, Lt. Cmdr. Bob Klant, that he thought the war was "random, unprovoked illegitimate violence," and that "any soldier who knowingly participates in a war can find no haven in the fact that they were following orders, in the eyes of international law."
While Klant didn't side with Paredes' legal reasoning, he didn't slap nearly as harsh a penalty on the sailor as the Navy had sought. Activists have been buzzing about a statement he made from the bench after allowing testimony from Marjorie Cohn, a law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, and an outspoken war critic.
Cohn testified that U.S. involvement in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia had no justification under international law, a position Navy prosecutors did not challenge on cross-examination. <h3>Afterward, according to published accounts, Klant said, "I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."</h3> The Navy has not released a trial transcript.
Several people in the courtroom thought the judge was scolding prosecutors for not challenging Cohn. Nonetheless, said former Army Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, who was sentenced to a year in jail and given a bad conduct discharge last year for refusing to return to Iraq after a two-week leave, it was important to "have an open debate about the immorality and illegality of this war."
As for Paredes' sentence, Mejia said, "It's too early to be a trend -- it's just one person. But it was a huge moral boost."
E-mail Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.
|
Quote:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...51&ItemID=7973
The Case of Pablo Paredes
by Lynn Gonzalez
May 30, 2005
San Diego Military Counseling Project
...Judge Klant kept a tight rein on the Defense's questioning of Marjorie Cohn; allowing only that which spoke to the reasonableness of Pablo's belief that the Iraq war is illegal. But when the attorney for the government began his cross-examination, the judge gave him plenty of rope with which to hang himself - and hang himself he did.
First he carefully elicited from Marjorie the legal basis, grounded in both international and domestic law, of her conclusion that not only is the war in Iraq illegal and Pablo's conclusions to that effect thereby reasonable, but that Pablo was actually duty bound to refuse to board his ship. Next he extrapolated out to "any seaman recruit's" ability to draw the same conclusions. Clearly of the belief that Marjorie's agreement was conjuring up visions of mass mutiny in the judge's mind, and assuming that such visions would convince the judge that harsher, rather than lighter, sentencing was in order; the prosecutor did not stop with the example of Iraq. He triumphantly referenced other published works of Marjorie's concerning the illegality of the wars on Afghanistan and Yugoslavia and again demanded that she specify if she believed that any seaman recruit would be justified in refusing orders due to his/her belief that these wars were illegal as well. In all three cases, Marjorie complied with a detailed explanation of why the war in question was illegal and why the seaman recruit would be obligated to refuse to participate in them once he found them as such.
After a 20-30 minute eternity that left us all in a stupor of disbelief that the war's legality had just been debated in a military court, on the record, and had lost, badly, the attorney for the prosecution sat down.
<h3>And then the judge said, "I believe the government has just successfully proved that any seaman recruit has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."</h3>
We were stunned, beyond ecstatic. Moments later the judge asked if the prosecution would like to reserve the right to recall Dr. Cohn. The pitiful tone of the attorney’s "no, your honor" caused a spontaneous eruption of laughter -which the judge chose to allow, reportedly chuckling himself.....
|
|
