Margaret Knapke's
Sentencing Statement 

June 8, 2000 before Judge Hugh Lawson
in US District Court, Columbus, GA

 

United States of America vs. Margaret Knapke

 

Good morning, Judge Lawson.  It's good to be in your courtroom again, to stand in solidarity with the people of Latin America.

 

I haven't spent much time in courtrooms and I hardly ever watch television, but I understand that it is customary in the sentencing phase for those who have been convicted to express contrition and to ask for leniency.  Your Honor, I have to break with that custom, for two reasons.  First,  I stand here respectfully but utterly unrepentant, as convinced today as I was on March 10 that I and my friends have committed no meaningful offense.  Indeed I maintain that what we did in confronting the SOA -- the source of so many crimes against humanity -- is required of us by the Nuremberg Principles, as well as by other laws of conscience. Secondly, Your Honor, regarding leniency:  on the one hand I consider myself innocent and therefore undeserving of any penalty whatsoever.  On the other hand, our action last November on the post -- when we dramatized the killing of innocents -- was an attempt to be in solidarity with the people of Latin America.  Now, I understand very well that the majority poor of Latin America have never been extended leniency throughout their long struggle for real economic and political democracy, certainly not by the US government and its military apparatus.  And so I cannot request leniency for myself either, because to do so would compromise my attempt to be in solidarity with the poor.  For these reasons I break with that custom today. 

 

Finally, Your Honor, I would like to pick up on a question you posed to me at the end of my testimony in March.  You might recall that you asked me what I expected of you and the judiciary, and why I thought it was appropriate for us to be discussing the SOA in your courtroom.  I gave you my best spontaneous response at the time, but would like to answer more thoughtfully now.

 

I think that you, as judge, have the most difficult -- but also the most interesting -- role to play in this drama.  By contrast, the roles of those who prosecute and those who are prosecuted are rather simply drawn.  For instance, it is clear to those who have studied US intervention throughout Latin America that repressive  economies need repressive militaries.  Unfortunately it is an easy matter for the Army to devise regulations that curtail necessary, critical discourse regarding that repression, including the SOA’s role in fostering it.  And when those regulations are violated,

Ft. Benning and SOA officials object with an outrage they cannot seem to muster for brutal human rights violations.  So the military's interest in keeping public scrutiny and critical discourse off the post is clear, and their subsequent role in this courtroom is predictable -- focusing only on the narrowest of legal concerns, namely post regulations.

 

My own role as protester is similarly clear.  I seek to relinquish my race and class privilege, and to represent worthily the interests of the oppressed majority throughout Latin America.  I feel obliged -- not merely inclined -- to break the kinds of regulations which stifle truth telling and critical discourse, so that the sad truth can be told about US intervention throughout Latin America, and the many ways that intervention violates international and moral law.
l recognize that the body of law is complex and sometimes contradictory, but I throw my lot in with those laws which truly protect the rights of all, and I defy those that merely reinforce privilege.  So my position also has its own predictable logic.

 

But your role seems to be more subtly drawn, Your Honor, because you represent  the entirety of the law, and its contradictions are yours to juggle.  So in answer to your question, what I expect of the judiciary is to discern and weigh the full range of legal issues which have propelled SOA protesters into this courtroom -- if not today, then at the next opportunity.  I really can think of no more appropriate place than a federal courtroom for inquiring into our allegations that the SOA has historically and continues to violate international law regarding human rights.  After all, the School's lawlessness reflects on the entire nation, and shamefully so.  Lastly, I have to think that the SOA's upcoming name change, which is an obvious attempt by SOA officials to distance themselves from their own grievous historical record, only stresses the importance and urgency of such an inquiry. Truly, Your Honor, lives are at stake, even as we speak.  So in brief, that is my expectation of the judiciary, and my deep hope. 

 

Thank you Judge Lawson.