http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=492

Associated Press

SAN DIEGO - A Navy petty officer opposed to the war in Iraq refused to board his ship Monday as sailors and Marines deployed for the Persian Gulf.

Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes, 23, said he has opposed the war since its inception. Until recently, the weapons-control technician said he did not feel he had a direct role in the war. Two weeks ago, however, he said he was involuntarily transferred to the amphibious transport USS Bonhomme Richard, which ferries Marines to Iraq.

"I don't want to be a part of a ship that's taking 3,000 Marines over there, knowing a hundred or more of them won't come back," he said. "I can't sleep at night knowing that's what I do for a living."

Paredes of the New York City borough of the Bronx said he joined the Navy in 2000 and has 20 months left on his six-year enlistment. He said he was stationed previously in Japan.

He said he was young and naive when he joined the Navy and "never imagined, in a million years, we would go to war with somebody who had done nothing to us."

Paredes was at the ship's pier at Navy Base San Diego Monday as Expeditionary Strike Group Five left for its tour in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Military officials did not immediately comment on his actions. He could face a court-martial, a dishonorable discharge and possible time in a military jail.

He said he hopes his protest might inspire other sailors, soldiers and Marines to refuse to take part in the war.

"I know other people are feeling the same way I am, and I'm hoping more people will stand up," he said. "They can't throw us all in jail."

I wouldn't bet on that they won't throw them all in jail. The only thing that will beat this guy to the brig is the headlights of the paddy wagon they put him in.

The Naval services can be particulary nasty critter especially when someone makes statements which are an incitement to others to mutiny.

Master Guns, as usual methinks you be right on this one.

The military pushes hard to make sure its members know fully what their rights are, and the corresponding responsibilities that go with them. This lad apparently decided it was important that he exercise his First Ammendment rights. Now he's going get an excellent lesson on his responsibilities when he gets stupid exercising those rights.

If anyone is interested all Military law is found within Title X of the United States Code. I wonder if, while reporting on this, the news media will do a better job of putting it up for consideration than they usually do.

So it's okay if you're a pharmacist with 'moral' values not to dispense birth control pills to patients based on your beliefs...

But it's not okay to refuse to go out and kill/die based on your 'moral' values?

How come some can skip out on their jobs but not others...?

This man is a concientious objector (nothing new) and I don't blame him a bit. If he were defending our country from invaders, I'm sure he'd be first in line. But he's not--he's being sent to the wrong country for the wrong reasons to kill the wrong people.

One name keeps nagging at me...Osama. The guy ain't in Iraq, kids. Wake. Up.

Because of this one little statement he makes

crosses the line on concientous objecting and makes it mutiny and inciting others to mutiny.

He better hope he can find a lawyer who can convince his court martial that either the reporter or Michael Moore said it and not him.

And people accuse Marines of being dumb; if this guy said what this story is reporting he just kissed about 20 year bye bye.

There's absolutely nothing in the story that indicates this is true. In fact it appears that the war in Iraq is the only war he said he opposes, which would disqualify him from CO status. IMHO had he said he opposed ALL war his request for CO status might have been approved.

Unfortunately for him the military and U.S. law don't let a member pick and choose who they get to kill or let live. When I had to kill I didn't get to pick who or where it would happen, and I didn't like it, but if I hadn't done my duty my comrades might have been killed and so it was necessary. Methinks in his, and probably your mind this isn't perfect, but it is the law and it works.

As usual your right Doc. You can't pick and choose what you are a concientous objector to.

I was still sitting there with my eyes bugged out and choking on my coffee in disbelief that somebody in the Navy could say something that stupid to a reporter when I made my previous post. The fellow said he had 20 months to go on his enlistment, he just converted that into 20 years and a dishonorable discharge. If I was him I'd be trying to figure out how to get to someplace which don't have an extradition treaty with the United States.

You mean someplace like Portland Oregon, Berkely California or Burlington Vermont?

Seems to be a pretty cut and dried case - the brig or dismissal from service (or both).

For those who defend him, I ask that you consider this - it is utterly unconscionable that individual military members should have the ability to choose when to go to war, and when to not go to war. The entire system we have is predicated on civilian control of the military. Should you have a system where that chain of command is non-existent, you invite a world in which military members can decide to initiate hostilities of their own accord, as well as refuse to participate in legally-mandated conflict.

Every Monday, when the protestors line up outside the Metro entrance to the Pentagon, I have to suppress a laugh at the one with the sign reading "refuse the order to go to war."

He might want to live in a world where the military refuses to bow to civilian rule, but I do not...

Costa Rica does not send people back to their countries of origin. When did the Congress of the US declare war on Iraq? I must have missed that occuring. I would use that fact as a legal challenge.

And it would fail miserably!

Right or wrong, the guy is taking a stand in and for what he believes. He might get punished, but he will be alive and with a clear concience. Some people consider the last two to be of some importance.

As to insighting mutiny. It's a bit of a stretch I think. His comments were general and not directed to a specific body of people, unless you think a 23 year olds comments to a reporter can influence US Military people around the world. How many yound soldiers, sailor, marines don't say, "This bites major goat wang" (or something like that) on a regular or daily basis? Do you think that that voiced discontent is going to lead to widespread discontent? That that individual is upsetting the moral and effectiveness of his/her unit? That that person should be reprimanded?

It is soldiers' and sailors' right to complain. It's always been that way.

Somebody has to say that war is wrong, when it is wrong. If you were in the military and you were given and order that would result in the lose of lives (civilian, fellow soldiers and your own) and you knew that the order was WRONG, you'd just suck is up and get killed. I suppose you would as so many do, who are so young. BTW, that is why prime military age is 19 or so years old. They are niave and follow the orders, without question, and sometimes to their own death.

A great film staring the very young Mel Gibson, accurately portraits the battle at Gallipolli, where young Boar soldiers were ordered to charge a machine gun nest. Every last one of them was slaughtered and nothing was achieved. There was severe errors made at the officer leadership levels that created this situation. What a shame! What a terrible shame that the rank and file unquestionable gave their lives for an ideal that was in some part to following orders for the sake of following orders.

And your challenge would be shot down immediately because of one little problem. He enlisted he was not drafted. He made a choice to join the Navy. After that challenge got blown out of the water, if I was the prosecutor of this case the first thing I would do is have this "sailor" (to all true sailors out there I mean no disrespect) recite his voluntary oath of enlistment. It goes like this for you non-military members.

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD
Here is a link to the oath of enlistmentNavy oath of enlistment (it is the same for all active duty services)
No one forced him to take this oath. No one held a gun to his head. They asked him to "raise your right hand and repeat after me". He could have changed his mind.
Another question for you david, where in this oath(that all volunteers must take to join) does it say congress must declare war for combat actions to be justified?

He made the choice to join the military. And guess what, When you joing the military you stand a chance of one day going to war. He knew what could happen.

Plus it isnt like he is taking an active role in combat like the Marines that are in harms way today. Hell he isnt even close to the danger that the people on the ground are. If he was one of those outstanding sailors that we Marines refer to as Navy Corpsman or better know as "Doc" then he might have a right to complain.

But he was Mutinous in his words and actions. He stated that he hoped others would refuse as well, so he is trying to incite a mutiny. Too bad we couldn't give him the Maximum punishment that is available for inciting a mutiny.

Looks like no one wants to challenge SSgt noonanda's reasoning. I can understand that 'cause to me it's pretty cut and dry the way he lays it out.

The more I look at this story the less understandable it becomes. This young lad is a weapons technician serving on a gator freighter, so his duties are totally focused on operating and maintaining systems used to defend the ship, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry. He's refusing to go on a float and help protect the rest on board from attack, not help at all in anything that involves him in the Iraq conflict. Considering that point nothing he's doing makes any sense.

He incited a mutiny. Wow! Do you have a link, because I completely missed this news story.

Duh, how reading what's written? As to where he might be advocating mutiny how about the story in the first note in this thread?

Did you mean to write "Duh, how about reading what's written".

Why don't you try reading what's written, and then attempt to write clearly and concisely? After that we'll work on your content and logic. Duh!

Yup, you got me, my bad!Oh my, you sound very upset about this. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have poked fun at your sarcasm, eh?

by his statement he is encouraging others to refuse orders. IE he is attempting to incite a mutiny.

Is this all you can try to contest, I guess my other statement what to solid to be argued

It just doesn't seem to be "working" lately...

The applicable section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is Article 82.

ART. 82. SOLICITATION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another or others to desert in violation of section 885 of this title (article 85) or mutiny in violation of section 894 of this title (article 94) shall, if the offense solicited or advised is attempted or committed, be punished with the punishment provided for the commission of the offense, but, if the offense solicited or advised is not committed or attempted, he shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The sailer did not take an oath to do whatever stupid commands were given contrary to international law. To defend the constitution requires respecting the rule of law. Some would say this war in Iraq is illegal. It is an optional undeclared war. In addition it was a really stupid thing to do (the invasion of Iraq). Current events show our Army will be shot to peices in 2 or 3 years. Really good move by your hero Bush.

Oh... so now he is attempting. Before, in your previous post, you stated that he DID. You and the sailor need to learn how to write. Duh!

From my military days, the only order I was to follow were lawful ones. After that I wasn't going to follow the immoral ones.

The war, the stop loss, and AbuGraib prison, etc. is all subject to lawful interpretation.

Remember how Rummy, said he'd take "complete responsibility" for AbuGraib. More and more information is coming out that it wasn't just a few low ranking individuals, that it was an organization problem that ran all the way up the chain of command. I'm expecting Rummy to fire himself any day now to accept "complete responsibility".

What joke this Administration and this war is, and to prosecute those with morals and integrity is a level of hypocrisy I never expected to see.

Yes this sailor did take an oath to do stupid commands. David weren't you in the military?
You never recieved a stupid order IE busywork orders such as painting rocks or police calling again and again. They are stupid orders but they still must be obeyed. And in none of the "stupid orders he recieved" does he have to worry about getting shot at. he is on a dang ship, they are transporting Marines TO the Gulf so THE MARINES can get off the boat and go into Iraq. This guy is either stupid or a total coward.


well so far he hasnt been told to disembowel Iraqi prisoners, or smash babies heads with a hammer, he got orders to become part of the crew of a ship that will be like a giant taxicab for the Marine Corps. He most likely wouldn't even get off the ship. Except if they got liberty somewhere like Bahrain or JebalAli.


Some would say this law is lawful, guess what this "Sailor" does not get to make the choice on this one. There is something I have heard time and time again in the Marine Corps when ever someone was being a whiney little baby about this or that. it was "WE DEFEND DEMOCRACY, WE DO NOT PRACTICE IT".

I guess to make all the bleeding heart liberals and mothers of america happy we need to change the oath to this, I made the new entries in bold and parenthesis for all to see:

I DO SOLEMNLY PROMISE (SWEARING IS BAD, ) THAT I WILL (WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT) SUPPORT AND (OR BUT NOT BOTH) DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL (OR SOME, DEPENDS ON MY MOOD) ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (BUT ONLY IF I FEEL LIKE IT AND ONLY IF IT WILL BE AN EASY WAR WITH LOTS OF MEDALS AND LITTLE DISCOMFORT); THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME (AS LONG AS THEY DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO OR TO DO THINGS THAT I DONT WANT TO); AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES(BUT ONLY IF HE IS A DEMOCRAT BECAUSE ALL REPUBLICANS ARE WARMONGERS AND BENT ON WORLD DOMINATION) AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME(AGAIN BUT ONLY IF I FEEL LIKE IT AND ONLY IF THE ASK ME NICELY WITH A PRETTY PLEASE THROWN IN THERE), ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE(BUT THESE LAWS ONLY APPLY TO ME IF I FEEL THEY ARE JUST LAWS). SO HELP ME (HIGHER POWER OF YOUR CHOICE)


Does this make you happy now david and stillmadatbush? Is this the oath that you want instituted so that Turds like this one can say "well I joined for the college money"
I hope it makes you happy

The oath should say I will defend my country when my country is attacked. Iraq was a decision made by the president with no justification. Iraq did not attack the US. I am not anti war. Wars are sometimes necessary to defend your country. We are not defending our country, we are occupying a country that did not attack the US. It was a stupid move to occupy Iraq and I do not blame servicemen from declining to sacrifice themselves for this effort.

The only thing this lad is sacrificing is his freedom, he wasn't going to go fight in Iraq. What part of this don't you understand?

BTW, that remark about Bush being my hero was uncalled for and should have been flagged 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct! Please play nice from now on.

Hold up. I don't think we are talking about the same person. The guy in Canada went to Afghanistan, but he married a Quaker about 6 months before that, and then got real involved in the church and had a religious conversion which was a very serious involvement. That's the guy in Canada.

The guy in San Diego, he WAS inciting a mutiny under military law. When you join the military, the contract is very clear. You are training with a gun for a REASON!! No matter what branch you join, you learn to be a soldier first and your job training second. The military does not, nor should it ever, allow individuals to decide what war they will deign to fight in. You take an oath to obey the Commander in Cheif, even if you didn't vote for him.

We have not declared war since WWII, and it's a good thing too, because that gives the executive a lot of power with regard to the civilian population. Therefore, congress votes to give the president the authority to use force. This was done. The country was also in favor. Just because things are going badly, does not mean that the serviceperson's contract suddenly becomes null and void.

You may not like the war, and if this were a guy who was in the ready reserve, or a 55 year old officer I might even understand, but I don't get it....what could you possibly think of a military that refuses to obey orders when they knew the deal going in and VOLUNTEERED for this? You can't just go in to get your teeth fixed, your boobs done and a college education you know? You might be sent to war...even by a president you didn't vote for....and a war you don't believe in...but that's what you agreed to do.

GI means Government Issue...you belong to them in a time of war and that is why you get to travel all over in peacetime and pay for college, food heathcare ect...

CO status on the guy in Canada is a rather complicated case...are we talking about that, or the other guy?

Nice to see you back, thought another of the more moderate types had departed.The only Canada guy post we've been talking about is target='_blank'>this one, but 'twould seem it's not the same Canada case you're thinking about. If I'm not mistaken there are actually three cases of U.S. deserters now being heard in Canada, including the one I think you're talking about that had married a Canadian Quaker. Methinks we'll see the other two cases pop up here before much longer seeing as so much duplication and repetition has been popular here lately.

I try to read the Toronto Globe & Mail and the Ottawa Citizen every day. All three have been reported on, but it looks like Canada will probably seriously entertain only the case of the guy married to the Canadian. Petitions of the other two look like they'll be summarily denied and those deserters returned kicking and screaming back across the border.

This thread is about stupid Navy guy in San Diego that may have just turned the 20 months remaining on his six year enlistment into a 20 year extension without any chance of a reenlistment bonus. He would have probably gotten off much lighter, but bright bulb that he was, he chose to get publicity which didn't really "help" his case any. Then he told the reporter "I know other people are feeling the same way I am, and I'm hoping more people will stand up," and "They can't throw us all in jail.", but of course, they can and will.

Methinks maybe this guy will qualify for the Darwin awards competition, eh?

In this discussion we were talking about legal obligations and the law, obeying the US constitution etc. In effect you have decided that the law applies only to the sailer but not to the president and the government. No declared war, OK. No problem. Attack a country with no real justification, OK. No problem. A sailer deceides that he does not wish to go along with the above war, big problem. So now the law counts and is applied. It looks like it matters who is commiting the crime rather than the rule of law itself. If more sailers had the balls of this sailer, the war would be over in 2 months.

By your logic there has not been a "legal" war since wwii

Iraq was in violation of resolution 1441 and preceding UN resolutions requiring that Iraq allow full and complete inspections and did not take any hostile action toward the US and allow no-flys areas as a condition for the cessetion of hostilities after the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam, by violating this agreement made renewed hostilites legal.

The president, whether you voted for him or not is the commander in chief. The sailor took a voluntary oath to obey the military and the commander in chief. The violation of this oath is punishable by law. Incitement to mutiny is also punishable by law and you learn that in basic training.

There are stipulations in the law to allow a soldier to disobey a direct order, but they are very limited.

This was not a direct action that the sailor disobeyed, this was the refusal to even deploy which can have no justification in law.

This is the military!! He knew that!!! You don't have to do that unless your drafted, but HE DOES!

You cannot simply decry the lack of the rule of US law as it pertains to the executive and then proceed to defend an illegal action of a person in that chain of command. Either you are in favor of the rule of US law, or you are not. Do you want everyone deciding which laws they will obey and which ones they will disobey or don't you?

Question, where is it written that the US is to enforce UN resolutions? Shouldn't the UN decide to enforce or not?

What if they gave a war and no one came? Everyone should defend their country and not wage wars of agression and occupation. Vietnam was the same as Iraq. It was a war started with lies and not declared by Congress. You would think that we would learn from history. Iraq will have the same bad ending for both the US and Iraq. Two years from now, when we have 60,000 casualties or more will everyone here still think its worth it? why not skip the 2 additional years and leave now rather than later? We can stay and protect the Kurds because they want us there. Let the Shia and Sunni kill each other which they will do sooner or later anyway. They will tire of the fighting and settle their differences as all of these types of infighting eventually do. The US is just in the way. The Shia will eventually turn on the US as the Sunni did. That sailer is showing more brains then the president. He deceided not to "come for the war".

Please don't take this as a statement of fact, it isn't. Methinks as a signatory to the UN Charter and having signed and ratified the treaty establishing the UN, our government agreed, at least in principle, to support and enforce where necessary UN resolutions. With our Security Council veto we were on pretty safe ground with these agreements.

Make sense?

Unfortunately Mr Sobien seems to prefer going over ground already covered. Methinks if he'd take the time to reread the notes all his concerns have already been addressed at least once here and/or elsewhere where it might be more on topic.

Obviously this topic has inflamed a few folks emotions.

The obvious solution I see here is everyone on this board should write Michael Moore a letter:

Dear Michael,
Since you have seen fit to exploit this poor gob in San Diego on you web site and it is entirly likely he would not be able to buy the best lawyers available please send him enouth money to hire a good lawyer.
On second thought, thinking of how eloquent you are, why don't you go down to the nearest Naval recruiter and enlist yourself and then refuse to carry out any orders given to you. Surely with your manipulative skills and money you can make hash out of any lawyer the Navy would send to prosecute you.

Best regards,

XXXXXXX


Hey Doc, What's the name of that dungeon the Navy has in Virginia so Michael Moore's fans will know where to send his fan mail?

I sure hope it is the same place they send the special forces war criminals who abuse and kill prisoners. The sailor will get 20 years. War criminals will get what...extra duty? We will see.

Unfortunately, the Navy closed their favorite health resort and spa called Portsmouth Naval Prison sometime back in the 1970's or 1980's. It had the affectionate nickname of "Alcatraz of the East" and was one of those places built in a time and era where punishment was more important than rehabiltation.

If it hadn't been such an overwhelming ecological and environmental nightmare it may have continued in use. Seems whenever anything was built or repaired there the Government specs always contained the phrase "must be made with maximum use of asbestos possible".

You work for the IRS don't you David? You ought to be more familiar with where and how long they send people into involuntary Federal servitude than the average person.

Marine - I think (at least during the enlistment process) the navy has a height weight limit.....do you think he could make it?

I can assure you if I was his Drill Instructor I can promise you I would make a diligent effort and grant him special dispositions not normally given to get him into compliance with guidelines and criteria established by CMC to make him at least look like a Marine.

The Navy might not want to expend the necessary effort or make necessary exceptions though

I'll admit right off the bat that I don't know much about military law.

I'm speculating that he may find some defense in refusing an unethical order--- if he was ordered to Iraq and believes this is wrong.

We don't know the outcome. Time will tell

I don't think anyone should have to fight Bush's little grievences. Let him fight them himself, I don't see his or Cheney's kids killing Iraqis.

Neither do I Brookie, but being married to one that was in the military, I've learned enough to know that if you're going to refuse an order, there better be a darn good reason for it. I think if you go back to the beginning of this thread its been pretty well explained particularly the part about it being an unethical order. From what I understand, he was on a ship and would not have been taking part in any activities in Iraq. There doesn't seem to be anything unethical about that. Perhaps it would have been better had he never enlisted but obviously he thought at the time there was a benefit in doing so.

He might well believe the war in Iraq is wrong but the question is do you want the military deciding what's right or wrong or do you want that responsibility to stay in the hands of civilians? You may not agree with what the "civilian authority" decides and I think there is ample example of that everywhere but at the very least we do get to vote even if we don't necessary like the way elections turn out. And that is another subject entirely that I'm not inviting decission on in this thread.

There's another story about a sergeant who put an Iraq teenager out of his misery because he was so badly wounded. (I don't think I've seen it on this forum but perhaps I missed it.) The sergeant will be sentenced to 3 years as I understand. What was the ethical thing that should have been done in this case? Should he have left the youngster in agony knowing he was going to die or did he do the ethical thing and end his misery? I'm not interested in hearing about how he shouldn't have been there, just want to know what you or anyone else for that matter think about whether he was right or wrong in doing what he did. For the sake of debate, we'll assume the story is not a fabrication to evade prosecution.

I'm going to preface my comments with the qualifier that I am a bit time-pressured right now and I am not always going back to read some of the background before snapping back on most threads. Sounds like I should have in this case

I'll go back and look at the beginning of this thread.






Another one in which I don't have time to go back and get background on, so I will be hypothetical.

These 4 conditions would all have to exist
If he was truely begging to be put out of his misery
If there was absolutely no way to evacuate him.
If there are no medics with morphine and absolutely no other way to comfort him.
If his wound was 100% obviously fatal it be the right thing.

These 4 conditions immediately come to mind as necessary to justify such an act

Regarding the issue of illegal orders, it is true that you so not have to obey them. However, there are two points that bear noting here.

First, based on the original article, the sailor isn't making the case that either the war or his order to sit on a ship in the gulf are illegal.

Secondly, were he to make that case, the burden of proof is on him, since the deployment order is prima facie legal.

No matter how you slice it, he's guilty.

Watch his video explaining his objection to participating in an immoral war - http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/pabloparedes1.mov

That ought to help a lot at his court martial.

I wonder if he's practiced rattling a tin cup on the bars yet.

This is a good sign. We need more of this kind of protest. Do what I have done. I know a kid who was ready to "serve his nation" by joining the reserves. I talked him out of it, and that I see that as my duty as the government has no problem funding a recruitment effort to get people to serve in this stupid illegal war. Subvert the "cause" in every legal way you can!

How true! Even the Canadian immigration courts hearing the cases of American military deserters seeking refuge haven't allowed this argument.

Methinks this young lad, who 'twould seem is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, was talked into this by someone else willing to sacrifice this kid to further their own agenda. Now this sailor will have to pay the price while the real culprit will remain free. Kinda reminds me of what VVAW did with their coffee house tactics during Vietnam.