If you're wondering about my count of the days since I filed my request, I accidentally fell behind by one day over the last weekend. This past Thursday and Friday were actually Days 25 & 26, and this weekend is then Days 27 & 28. Monday will resume my regular schedule.
Continuing on timing, I've been told to expect that this process will take months. For example, during my interview by the Chaplain, he made, what seemed to me, a loaded statement that the decision-making process for my request may take so long that I would be at the end of my "contract" anyway. A noteworthy aside is that he failed to mention the three years I would still be forced to spend in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) even after my "active duty". Don't be fooled, anyone who enlists does so for 8 years, whatever portion is not listed as active duty is spent in the the IRR.
In any case, I informed the Chaplain that I was undeterred by the potential time-frames involved, and I stated that I ultimately want to do what I believe is morally right, despite what may seem more pragmatic. I also commented that I already felt emotionally much better having made my decision and taken action. I've related to a number of friends that I've experienced an increased self-acceptance and satisfaction in life since I aligned my beliefs and actions by filing my request; however, I was unaware that others less close to me had also noticed a definitive change.
A couple weeks ago, I paid for Kinko's to make spiral-bound presentation booklets containing the online version of my application and a preface that is a slight modification of my "Reflections on GTMO" blog post. I'm continuing to pass around these folios to a variety of individuals on the Navy base who I think will be interested.
After reading it, one such person asked to speak with me privately. A little background is that she was one of the first people I worked with in the Navy. We met in late 2005 and have intermittently talked when we see each other at the base ever since. In addition to thanking me for sharing my thoughts and beliefs, she said that reading what I wrote finally gave her the information to make sense of what had been going on with me.
Quite surprised, I asked what she meant. She began by telling me that she's always appreciated me as a uniquely nice person and therefore has valued even our casual friendship. She went on to say that because of this, she's perhaps been more perceptive and interested in me that I've given her credit for. Completely intrigued as to where this was going, I urged her to explain.
According to her, she discerned a couple significant shifts in my overall demeanor and mood in the years we've known each other. Upon first meeting, she expressed that she generally knew me as hard-working and happy go-lucky; however, she claimed it was obvious to her that something had changed with me upon my return from GTMO. She stated that she didn't feel that she knew me well enough to appropriately broach the topic, but she said that, in my eyes in particular, she could see something was deeply bothering me. Then "a couple of months ago", she noticed another change. This she described by saying it looked as if I'd finally found peace about whatever it was that had been troubling me. By my sharing my request and some of my other written thoughts, she felt emboldened to talk with me about it. She concluded by saying that although a belief in God works for her, she was sincerely happy for me, and she was glad to have finally made sense of what it was that had been going on with me over the past 18 months.
I was awestruck by her insight, as well as her acceptance. Nevertheless, the conversation was still not complete, as she continued it by expressing that she would like to speak on my behalf, not about what it was that I believed, but about how she's known me as long as anyone in the Navy has, and she's convinced that I have authentically changed. My wonderment turned to gratitude, and I thanked her profusely for everything from talking to me to her willingness to be a witness at my sometime-coming "informal hearing".
Although my ultimate hope is that by making my conscientious objection as public as possible I will inspire others to do the same, I can think of no better secondary achievement than that which took place in the above conversation.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Day 24 - Ordered not to die . . . at least by suicide
Yesterday I overheard a radio news commentator mention that the Ft. Campbell, KY army base has had 11 suicides since the first of the year. This alarming loss of life by suicide caused me to look for further information, and I was literally shocked to discover that the senior commander of the base, Brigadier General Stephen J. Townsend, held a "Suicide Stand-Down" (a mandatory training that effectively halts regular operations of a base) from which CNN quoted him as follows:
I ask you to consider his words in light of the fact that he is likely the highest ranking person who will ever be physically seen by the masses of people who were mandated to listen to him that day. In other words, within the strictly authoritarian hierarchy that is the military Chain of Command, he is the top level of what is actually visible to the vast majority of those below him. Secondly, bear in mind this one quote from the book Suicide Science, in which the chapter title Shame, Guilt, and Suicide alone is telling:
Furthermore, what effect might it have had on the soldier who was earnestly struggling with thoughts of suicide, perhaps as an effect of the extreme cognitive dissonance required of any individual tasked with killing others for the sake of promoting peace, justice, and liberty?
"If you don't remember anything else I say in the next five or 10 minutes, remember this -- suicidal behavior in the 101st on Fort Campbell is bad," Brig. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend told his forces. "It's bad for soldiers, it's bad for families, bad for your units, bad for this division and our army and our country and it's got to stop now. Suicides on Fort Campbell have to stop now." (Full Story)Additionally:
"Don't let yourself, your buddies or your families down," he said, ending his comments by repeating, "This has got to stop, soldiers. It's got to stop now. Have a great week." (Full Story)
I ask you to consider his words in light of the fact that he is likely the highest ranking person who will ever be physically seen by the masses of people who were mandated to listen to him that day. In other words, within the strictly authoritarian hierarchy that is the military Chain of Command, he is the top level of what is actually visible to the vast majority of those below him. Secondly, bear in mind this one quote from the book Suicide Science, in which the chapter title Shame, Guilt, and Suicide alone is telling:
Although CNN interviewed a few mental health experts about how such "guidance" may have been ineffective, I'm more interested to hear what message you think was received by the soldiers if they did exactly as their General ordered. What might they be thinking and feeling if, in the wake of the 11 suicides that prompted the special meeting, they remembered only that their General said, as regards suicide:
"Theory and emerging empirical research indicates that feelings of shame are more prominent than guilt in the dynamics leading up to suicidal thoughts and behaviors."
"It's bad for soldiers, it's bad for families, bad for your units, bad for this division and our army and our country . . ."
Furthermore, what effect might it have had on the soldier who was earnestly struggling with thoughts of suicide, perhaps as an effect of the extreme cognitive dissonance required of any individual tasked with killing others for the sake of promoting peace, justice, and liberty?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Day 23 - Sir! No Sir!
Although I still have no updates to offer regarding the progress of my conscientious objection, I'm encouraged by the new and different people I hear from almost daily as a result of this website. One of the more exciting contacts I've made is a gentleman who was discharged as a conscientious objector in 2001. I've exchanged emails with him about how the process went and also how he's been doing post-Navy.
Another individual, previously unknown to me, recently emailed an offer to help me find a job upon discharge, and in addition he directed me to the website where I discovered the documentary film Sir! No Sir!. For the more savvy film critics out there, be aware that this isn't a cheesy low-budget propaganda piece, but an award-winning movie that received two thumbs up from Ebert & Roeper.
A quote from the following 2-minute trailer resonated deeply with my own sentiments about both the current wars of the U.S. military and all war in general:
"We truly believed what would stop that war was when the soldiers stopped fighting it."
Likewise, I truly believe that most of the individuals killing each other on either side of any war are not doing so because they actually want to or even because they think that it's right. Sadly they're risking their own lives and terminating the lives of others primarily out of a combination of extreme fear and programmed obedience.
The key then is to no longer allow government-sanctioned murder to masquerade as a matter of honor, duty, and sacrifice. Instead it is right to empower the individuals working for the military to recognize that they have the ability and the moral justification to stop fighting, regardless of what they may be "ordered" to do.
Another individual, previously unknown to me, recently emailed an offer to help me find a job upon discharge, and in addition he directed me to the website where I discovered the documentary film Sir! No Sir!. For the more savvy film critics out there, be aware that this isn't a cheesy low-budget propaganda piece, but an award-winning movie that received two thumbs up from Ebert & Roeper.
A quote from the following 2-minute trailer resonated deeply with my own sentiments about both the current wars of the U.S. military and all war in general:
"We truly believed what would stop that war was when the soldiers stopped fighting it."
Likewise, I truly believe that most of the individuals killing each other on either side of any war are not doing so because they actually want to or even because they think that it's right. Sadly they're risking their own lives and terminating the lives of others primarily out of a combination of extreme fear and programmed obedience.
The key then is to no longer allow government-sanctioned murder to masquerade as a matter of honor, duty, and sacrifice. Instead it is right to empower the individuals working for the military to recognize that they have the ability and the moral justification to stop fighting, regardless of what they may be "ordered" to do.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Day 22 - *Updated* Further Replies to "Obedience as Virtue?"
Noah Marsh also choose to address a specific remark of Jay's, and I wanted to offer his additional perspective to further the discussion. I sincerely hope to hear back from Jay, but in the interim I will seek to address other issues.
If reading the above sentences leaves you perplexed as to what discussion I'm referencing, please start by reading Day 19 - Obedience as Virtue. If you then progress through each subsequent day to this most recent update, it will hopefully all make sense. If you're immediately reticent to go backwards because it will involve more reading, fear not, there are only two additional posts between where I have directed you and the present.
Noah Marsh
In his third paragraph, Jay Jones questions Dan's analogy of beating a child, i.e. spanking, by claiming, "It really doesn't hold water." First, I must say that analogies are never perfect. People select analogies on the basis of a dominant feature of correspondence important for the immediate point the author is making. Of course the analogy will not correlate perfectly in every aspect. With that in mind I still do not agree with Mr. Jones' claim, "It really doesn't hold water."
Secondly, the justification for Mr. Jones' critique misses an important point of Dan's analogy. While there are instances in which a parent does tell a child not to do something for his or her own safety, e.g. not to touch a hot stove, the majority of the directives that parents issue to their children have no impact on a child's welfare - safety. For instance, almost every parent that I know has told their child not to color on the walls. When a child violates that edict, punishment ensues, often by "spanking." Why must a child not color on the walls? I may be wrong on this, so please correct me if I am, but Mr. Jones would say, "[Because,] no shit [the parent] knows better than the non-obedient child." What does the parent know better than the non-obedient child? Why does that knowledge mean the child should not color on the walls? Often times I believe parents' demand obedience from their children to avoid their own embarrassment (I have seen many parent-child interactions on public transit that demonstrate this). What is the difference from learning not to touch a hot stove by burning one's self and by beating? The latter attaches the pain to disobedience while the former attaches pain to the harmful act. I believe Dan's analogy was chosen intentionally (correct me if I am wrong on this as well), specifically for this reason. Dan's analogy hold's more water than Mr. Jones allows for.
If reading the above sentences leaves you perplexed as to what discussion I'm referencing, please start by reading Day 19 - Obedience as Virtue. If you then progress through each subsequent day to this most recent update, it will hopefully all make sense. If you're immediately reticent to go backwards because it will involve more reading, fear not, there are only two additional posts between where I have directed you and the present.
Noah Marsh
In his third paragraph, Jay Jones questions Dan's analogy of beating a child, i.e. spanking, by claiming, "It really doesn't hold water." First, I must say that analogies are never perfect. People select analogies on the basis of a dominant feature of correspondence important for the immediate point the author is making. Of course the analogy will not correlate perfectly in every aspect. With that in mind I still do not agree with Mr. Jones' claim, "It really doesn't hold water."
Secondly, the justification for Mr. Jones' critique misses an important point of Dan's analogy. While there are instances in which a parent does tell a child not to do something for his or her own safety, e.g. not to touch a hot stove, the majority of the directives that parents issue to their children have no impact on a child's welfare - safety. For instance, almost every parent that I know has told their child not to color on the walls. When a child violates that edict, punishment ensues, often by "spanking." Why must a child not color on the walls? I may be wrong on this, so please correct me if I am, but Mr. Jones would say, "[Because,] no shit [the parent] knows better than the non-obedient child." What does the parent know better than the non-obedient child? Why does that knowledge mean the child should not color on the walls? Often times I believe parents' demand obedience from their children to avoid their own embarrassment (I have seen many parent-child interactions on public transit that demonstrate this). What is the difference from learning not to touch a hot stove by burning one's self and by beating? The latter attaches the pain to disobedience while the former attaches pain to the harmful act. I believe Dan's analogy was chosen intentionally (correct me if I am wrong on this as well), specifically for this reason. Dan's analogy hold's more water than Mr. Jones allows for.
Day 22 - Further Replies to "Obedience As Virtue?"
The current discussion began as a result of my May 22nd post, available here, that critically questioned whether or not obedience should be valued as a virtue. It continued in the response of Jay Jones, who I will summarize as advocating that "to harangue obedience itself is a flawed argument," because "at some level, whether as a child to a parent, a lawbreaker to a police officer or a soldier to a superior, obedience is required." Jay also expressed that "To fret over “violating others liberty in order to obey someone else’s authority,” like I have done, "can be foolhardy". I encourage you to read Jay's thoughts in their full context here, and add to the discussion based on any of the comments or my original post.
Today's post comes as a result of two different replies to what Jay wrote. The first, from Matt Lakemacher, is written from the perspective of one who believes in God and states that, "Obedience has its place in a civilized society, absolutely, but sometimes the noblest thing that one can do is to be disobedient." Secondly, and in contrast to both Jay and Matt, Wes Bertrand wrote from the perspective that, "Obedience can't be a virtue for a volitional, conceptual organism, although religion and statism have always contended otherwise."
From this point forward I wish to let each party speak for themselves, and I hope that in reading this, you too, will be transformed from reader to active participant in this critically important discussion.
Matt Lakemacher
I do believe in a God, and yes at some point subservience is, as you say "logical." The hornet's nest of issues I have with religion and our culture, crystallized in the hymn "Trust and Obey" that I ironically quoted from, is when that subservience is blind, unthinking, and uncritical. It is this elevation of faith and obedience to the level of highest virtue that can lead to the mass murder of Jews just as easily as it can lead men to fly jet planes into skyscrapers (all in the name of religion). Obedience has its place in a civilized society, absolutely, but sometimes the noblest thing that one can do is to be disobedient. Understanding the difference between the authority of God and the authority of man's flawed attempts to understand Him is also critical. Lastly, my comment has everything to do with the previous post, as "sheep-like" following of authority has been a hallmark of organized religion since its inception, and is just as problematic as in cases where the authority in question is the government (or where it's impossible to tell the difference between the two).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wes Bertrand
Obedience can't be a virtue for a volitional, conceptual organism, although religion and statism have always contended otherwise. Ask yourself why.
Ask yourself why one human being should obey another human being. We're not talking about doing some practical task for another who is unable or who has other things to do (as in the workplace). Obedience in the present context is synonymous with compliance, submissiveness, acquiescence, passivity, docility, deference, subservience, servility, subjection--in essence, one will bending to another's will.
Jay Jones apparently believes in the master/slave relationship as a way of psychological life, even though the result is psychological death. Most of the statements above seem to indicate that irresponsibility is something to aspire to, that irresponsibility should be considered a hallmark of good behavior. Well, you reap what you sow--children who fear authority won't think for themselves, will lack creativity and passion, and grow up to be masters of still more young slaves. But a leash is just a rope with a collar at both ends, you see.
To use concepts without understanding the nature of concepts spells intellectual--and thus moral--bankruptcy. It also spells the inability to grasp objective reality on one's own terms. Francis Bacon certainly got one thing right: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." Notice that he didn't say "Humans, to be commanded, must be obeyed," for such a remark would have wreaked of illogic.
Unfortunately, due to the illogic of our present culture, most human beings, especially those who favor a second-hander's code of morality (master/slave relationships), are practically devoid of genuine self-esteem. To use reason in an independent fashion would require them to consider themselves worthy of the task, for no man who has worked on his self-confidence and self-respect would consider obedience a virtue.
Self-sacrifice reveals mind-sacrifice.
Rational animals would be wise to heed the words of philosopher Ayn Rand (via John Galt): "Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error. In place of your dream of an omniscient automaton, accept the fact that any knowledge man acquires is acquired by his own will and effort, and that that is his distinction in the universe, that is his nature, his morality, his glory."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/independence.html
In other words, swear by your life and your love of it that you will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for yours. Only then will you begin to understand what living as a rational animal entails--and that within each child resides the future of humanity (as Maria Montessori eloquently noted).
W
p.s.,
Self-responsibility and its Effects on Obedience and Aggression
http://www.logicallearning.net/obedience.html
*Please be aware that while I highly value comments, they are moderated to ensure that this doesn't become a forum for personal attacks. If your comment doesn't post, please don't hesitate to email me.
Today's post comes as a result of two different replies to what Jay wrote. The first, from Matt Lakemacher, is written from the perspective of one who believes in God and states that, "Obedience has its place in a civilized society, absolutely, but sometimes the noblest thing that one can do is to be disobedient." Secondly, and in contrast to both Jay and Matt, Wes Bertrand wrote from the perspective that, "Obedience can't be a virtue for a volitional, conceptual organism, although religion and statism have always contended otherwise."
From this point forward I wish to let each party speak for themselves, and I hope that in reading this, you too, will be transformed from reader to active participant in this critically important discussion.
Matt Lakemacher
I do believe in a God, and yes at some point subservience is, as you say "logical." The hornet's nest of issues I have with religion and our culture, crystallized in the hymn "Trust and Obey" that I ironically quoted from, is when that subservience is blind, unthinking, and uncritical. It is this elevation of faith and obedience to the level of highest virtue that can lead to the mass murder of Jews just as easily as it can lead men to fly jet planes into skyscrapers (all in the name of religion). Obedience has its place in a civilized society, absolutely, but sometimes the noblest thing that one can do is to be disobedient. Understanding the difference between the authority of God and the authority of man's flawed attempts to understand Him is also critical. Lastly, my comment has everything to do with the previous post, as "sheep-like" following of authority has been a hallmark of organized religion since its inception, and is just as problematic as in cases where the authority in question is the government (or where it's impossible to tell the difference between the two).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wes Bertrand
Obedience can't be a virtue for a volitional, conceptual organism, although religion and statism have always contended otherwise. Ask yourself why.
Ask yourself why one human being should obey another human being. We're not talking about doing some practical task for another who is unable or who has other things to do (as in the workplace). Obedience in the present context is synonymous with compliance, submissiveness, acquiescence, passivity, docility, deference, subservience, servility, subjection--in essence, one will bending to another's will.
Jay Jones apparently believes in the master/slave relationship as a way of psychological life, even though the result is psychological death. Most of the statements above seem to indicate that irresponsibility is something to aspire to, that irresponsibility should be considered a hallmark of good behavior. Well, you reap what you sow--children who fear authority won't think for themselves, will lack creativity and passion, and grow up to be masters of still more young slaves. But a leash is just a rope with a collar at both ends, you see.
To use concepts without understanding the nature of concepts spells intellectual--and thus moral--bankruptcy. It also spells the inability to grasp objective reality on one's own terms. Francis Bacon certainly got one thing right: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." Notice that he didn't say "Humans, to be commanded, must be obeyed," for such a remark would have wreaked of illogic.
Unfortunately, due to the illogic of our present culture, most human beings, especially those who favor a second-hander's code of morality (master/slave relationships), are practically devoid of genuine self-esteem. To use reason in an independent fashion would require them to consider themselves worthy of the task, for no man who has worked on his self-confidence and self-respect would consider obedience a virtue.
Self-sacrifice reveals mind-sacrifice.
Rational animals would be wise to heed the words of philosopher Ayn Rand (via John Galt): "Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error. In place of your dream of an omniscient automaton, accept the fact that any knowledge man acquires is acquired by his own will and effort, and that that is his distinction in the universe, that is his nature, his morality, his glory."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/independence.html
In other words, swear by your life and your love of it that you will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for yours. Only then will you begin to understand what living as a rational animal entails--and that within each child resides the future of humanity (as Maria Montessori eloquently noted).
W
p.s.,
Self-responsibility and its Effects on Obedience and Aggression
http://www.logicallearning.net/obedience.html
*Please be aware that while I highly value comments, they are moderated to ensure that this doesn't become a forum for personal attacks. If your comment doesn't post, please don't hesitate to email me.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Days 20 & 21 - One Answer to "Obedience as Virtue"
I would like to thank Jay Jones for making the second set of comments to the "Obedience as Virtue?" post. His remarks will serve as today's content, and I hope that they will stir further discussion of this question. I will be busy fulfilling the orders of the Navy to work today, and it will therefore probably be a few days before I can respond myself. In the meantime, please feel free to add comments to either myself or Jay, and I may even add your writing as a post. Without further adieu, Jay Jones:
"Ok, as for "Anonymous’" post. If you believe in a God, then subservience at some level is just damn logical. If not, well then there's a whole hornet's nest of issues you have with religion and, well, our culture. Yet none of them have much to do with this post.
But for Dan, I know that you've done more than enough thinking through of what you're doing. However, in arguing the merits or detriments of obedience, you overlook a couple simple truths. One, the vast majority of people are sheep, not those that would naturally lead. You’re in the Navy, you’ve seen this. People can be trained to lead, but most don’t naturally.
As for the whole corporal punishment analogy, it really doesn’t hold water. If your 5 year old does whatever it is that parents of 5 year olds don’t want them to do: Is it really worthwhile to try to confer with him on the level of self-actualization? No, you have to go down to his level to make sure he understands where you are coming from. I think it’s somewhat ironic that you juxtapose the relationship of a parent who really, by all accounts, no shit knows better than the non-obedient child. Honestly, what it seems you’re espousing is anarchy at the kindergarten level.
The same holds true with interrogation. You can start at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy and work your way down. The best interrogators may be able to function in the top few levels. However, when it comes down to it, EVERYONE will respond to the lower two (safety, physiological). The question of the day falls into two parts: Where is the line where our society deems some practices, when put into common use, unethical. And, when and in what cases, are said practices allowed given the situation is considered dire?
But to harangue obedience itself is a flawed argument. As much as I think I could last and fare well in an anarchistic “society”. It’s not what I would prefer. So at some level, whether as a child to a parent, a lawbreaker to a police officer or a soldier to a superior, obedience is required. To fret over “violating others liberty in order to obey someone else’s authority” (not an exact quote, changed for tense) can be foolhardy. It is perfectly acceptable, in our society, to without trial indefinitely detain those who would be a harassment to the public. Don’t believe me? Go look at your local loony bin. There you will find dozens of people, never even accused of any crime, held against their will.
As for Milgram, people are sheep.
To be continued….
Tried to post before under a name, but I think anonymous is working. But my name's Jay Jones."
"Ok, as for "Anonymous’" post. If you believe in a God, then subservience at some level is just damn logical. If not, well then there's a whole hornet's nest of issues you have with religion and, well, our culture. Yet none of them have much to do with this post.
But for Dan, I know that you've done more than enough thinking through of what you're doing. However, in arguing the merits or detriments of obedience, you overlook a couple simple truths. One, the vast majority of people are sheep, not those that would naturally lead. You’re in the Navy, you’ve seen this. People can be trained to lead, but most don’t naturally.
As for the whole corporal punishment analogy, it really doesn’t hold water. If your 5 year old does whatever it is that parents of 5 year olds don’t want them to do: Is it really worthwhile to try to confer with him on the level of self-actualization? No, you have to go down to his level to make sure he understands where you are coming from. I think it’s somewhat ironic that you juxtapose the relationship of a parent who really, by all accounts, no shit knows better than the non-obedient child. Honestly, what it seems you’re espousing is anarchy at the kindergarten level.
The same holds true with interrogation. You can start at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy and work your way down. The best interrogators may be able to function in the top few levels. However, when it comes down to it, EVERYONE will respond to the lower two (safety, physiological). The question of the day falls into two parts: Where is the line where our society deems some practices, when put into common use, unethical. And, when and in what cases, are said practices allowed given the situation is considered dire?
But to harangue obedience itself is a flawed argument. As much as I think I could last and fare well in an anarchistic “society”. It’s not what I would prefer. So at some level, whether as a child to a parent, a lawbreaker to a police officer or a soldier to a superior, obedience is required. To fret over “violating others liberty in order to obey someone else’s authority” (not an exact quote, changed for tense) can be foolhardy. It is perfectly acceptable, in our society, to without trial indefinitely detain those who would be a harassment to the public. Don’t believe me? Go look at your local loony bin. There you will find dozens of people, never even accused of any crime, held against their will.
As for Milgram, people are sheep.
To be continued….
Tried to post before under a name, but I think anonymous is working. But my name's Jay Jones."
Friday, May 22, 2009
Day 19 - Obedience as Virtue?
"A child who grows up in an environment where only obedience is rewarded with survival gets very black and white about authority."
I recently heard this said by Paul Gibbons on the Complete Liberty Podcast - Episode 66, and it resonated with me deeply. I say this not because of any unique parenting to which I was subjected, but as a result of the fact that my experience of having obedience so readily instilled in me would be considered not just normal but praiseworthy in our culture. Arguably, it is this principle of following authority that has been more thoroughly ingrained in me than any other.
Whether it was obedience to God, parents, church, state, teachers, adults, person's wearing special clothing, or any number of the other seemingly endless categories to which I had to gratefully submit, the issue was not to whom you were being obedient but that you were obeying. The highest compliment was, "You're such an obedient little boy," not "You consistently discern what's right and act accordingly."
Think for yourself; did your very first lesson involve learning that disobedience would result in physical pain? I would venture that, for most of us, one of the earliest concepts we came to comprehend was that disobedience = physical beating. Don't put the toy down when told, beating. Don't pick the toy up and put it away when told, beating. And my personal favorite for guaranteeing that you won't obey: don't sit quietly without moving, beating. I'm guessing that many of us literally had insult added to injury when, as we got older, we not only were beaten, but first it was explained to us that not only were we deserving of a beating given our lack of obedience, but the physical pain that was to be inflicted on us against our will was for our own good. This of course meant that while we gingerly avoided sitting down, we should feel a humble gratitude toward whatever individual had so generously chosen to come to our aide in this way.
Of course, I do realize that there is a term more generally accepted for this type of action, but like many words, it serves only to legitimize what would otherwise cause significant dissonance between action and stated belief. The word in question is spanking, but seeing as I've never heard of a case of domestic abuse where a spouse was accused of spanking another person as a result of disobedience, I chose to use the term that is applied in the latter situations, since in these cases, the same action is rightfully portrayed in an unfavorable light.
Seeing as my parents and hopefully many who know them will likely read this post, I wish to be explicit that although I remember being the recipient of corporal punishment at their hands, it was done to no greater degree or in any greater frequency than would be accepted as normal and appropriate in our culture. My point is not to draw attention to my parents, whom I love and respect deeply for all that they've given me. Instead, I wish to speculate that the level of unquestioning obedience modeled by the workers in places like GTMO isn't surprising given the primal level on which such a severe physical and emotional conditioning toward obedience has been ingrained.
Thankfully, the incredible influence that stems from a human desire to be obedient is not one that has gone unstudied. In his landmark social psychology experiment, Stanly Milgram "measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience." Although Milgram's focus certainly wasn't on determining the causal factors of such obedience, to my knowledge, there exists no more clear and indisputable evidence of just how far people will go in order to obey.
Through his experiment, Milgram unexpectedly made public the shocking reality that most people need no more incentive than that of obedience to cause extreme physical pain to the point of presumed unconsciousness in someone else. In his study, the incentive to obey by presumably giving high voltage electrical shocks to another human being was provided by nothing more than a stranger in a lab coat who authoritatively told the unwitting test subjects that "the experiment requires that you go on."
At a mere 11 pages in length, Milgram's summary article, The Perils of Obedience(pdf), is undoubtedly one of the most priceless modern contributions toward understanding the nature of human social interaction. Although I can't offer a high enough recommendation for reading the article in it's entirety, I know my own busy schedule, and so I'll quote paragraphs 111-112.
Is there a similarity in principle between the choice of words used to describe how children are "spanked" and how military personnel are lauded for their "loyal fulfillment of duty"? I don't intend that as a rhetorical question, and so in personally answering it, I admit to having consoled myself innumerable times on the manner in which I was "honorably serving" and "doing my duty for my country."
However, I can no longer distract myself with such meaningless conglomerations of words. After all, I will not deny that I have violated others' liberty in order to obey someone else's authority, and of one thing I am sure, there is no honor in that.
ADDENDUM: I received an email containing additional information in regard to the following sentence I had written about Stanley Milgram.
I recently heard this said by Paul Gibbons on the Complete Liberty Podcast - Episode 66, and it resonated with me deeply. I say this not because of any unique parenting to which I was subjected, but as a result of the fact that my experience of having obedience so readily instilled in me would be considered not just normal but praiseworthy in our culture. Arguably, it is this principle of following authority that has been more thoroughly ingrained in me than any other.
Whether it was obedience to God, parents, church, state, teachers, adults, person's wearing special clothing, or any number of the other seemingly endless categories to which I had to gratefully submit, the issue was not to whom you were being obedient but that you were obeying. The highest compliment was, "You're such an obedient little boy," not "You consistently discern what's right and act accordingly."
Think for yourself; did your very first lesson involve learning that disobedience would result in physical pain? I would venture that, for most of us, one of the earliest concepts we came to comprehend was that disobedience = physical beating. Don't put the toy down when told, beating. Don't pick the toy up and put it away when told, beating. And my personal favorite for guaranteeing that you won't obey: don't sit quietly without moving, beating. I'm guessing that many of us literally had insult added to injury when, as we got older, we not only were beaten, but first it was explained to us that not only were we deserving of a beating given our lack of obedience, but the physical pain that was to be inflicted on us against our will was for our own good. This of course meant that while we gingerly avoided sitting down, we should feel a humble gratitude toward whatever individual had so generously chosen to come to our aide in this way.
Of course, I do realize that there is a term more generally accepted for this type of action, but like many words, it serves only to legitimize what would otherwise cause significant dissonance between action and stated belief. The word in question is spanking, but seeing as I've never heard of a case of domestic abuse where a spouse was accused of spanking another person as a result of disobedience, I chose to use the term that is applied in the latter situations, since in these cases, the same action is rightfully portrayed in an unfavorable light.
Seeing as my parents and hopefully many who know them will likely read this post, I wish to be explicit that although I remember being the recipient of corporal punishment at their hands, it was done to no greater degree or in any greater frequency than would be accepted as normal and appropriate in our culture. My point is not to draw attention to my parents, whom I love and respect deeply for all that they've given me. Instead, I wish to speculate that the level of unquestioning obedience modeled by the workers in places like GTMO isn't surprising given the primal level on which such a severe physical and emotional conditioning toward obedience has been ingrained.
Thankfully, the incredible influence that stems from a human desire to be obedient is not one that has gone unstudied. In his landmark social psychology experiment, Stanly Milgram "measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience." Although Milgram's focus certainly wasn't on determining the causal factors of such obedience, to my knowledge, there exists no more clear and indisputable evidence of just how far people will go in order to obey.
Through his experiment, Milgram unexpectedly made public the shocking reality that most people need no more incentive than that of obedience to cause extreme physical pain to the point of presumed unconsciousness in someone else. In his study, the incentive to obey by presumably giving high voltage electrical shocks to another human being was provided by nothing more than a stranger in a lab coat who authoritatively told the unwitting test subjects that "the experiment requires that you go on."
At a mere 11 pages in length, Milgram's summary article, The Perils of Obedience(pdf), is undoubtedly one of the most priceless modern contributions toward understanding the nature of human social interaction. Although I can't offer a high enough recommendation for reading the article in it's entirety, I know my own busy schedule, and so I'll quote paragraphs 111-112.
"The essence of obedience is that a person comes to see himself has the instrument for carrying out another persons wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift in viewpoint has occurred, all the essential features of obedience follow. The most far-reaching consequence is that a person feels responsible to the authority directing him but feels no responsibility for the content of the actions that the authority prescribes. Morality does not disappear—it acquires a radically different focus: the subordinate person feels shame or pride depending on how adequately he has performed the actions called for by authority.On the eve of this Memorial Day weekend, let me ask you, how many times have you heard military members praised for their loyalty, their fulfillment of duty, and their discipline? How many times have you heard them praised for their specific actions, such as "I'm so proud of you for dropping those bombs and killing all those people"?
Language provides numerous terms to pinpoint this type of morality: loyalty, duty, and discipline all are terms heavily saturated with moral meaning and refer to the degree to which a person fulfills his obligations to authority. They refer not to the “goodness” of the person per se but to the adequacy with which a subordinate fulfills his socially defined role. The most frequent defense of the individual who has performed a heinous act under the command of authority is that he has simply done his duty. In asserting this defense, the individual is not introducing an alibi concocted for the moment but is reporting honestly on the psychological attitude induced by submission to authority."
Is there a similarity in principle between the choice of words used to describe how children are "spanked" and how military personnel are lauded for their "loyal fulfillment of duty"? I don't intend that as a rhetorical question, and so in personally answering it, I admit to having consoled myself innumerable times on the manner in which I was "honorably serving" and "doing my duty for my country."
However, I can no longer distract myself with such meaningless conglomerations of words. After all, I will not deny that I have violated others' liberty in order to obey someone else's authority, and of one thing I am sure, there is no honor in that.
ADDENDUM: I received an email containing additional information in regard to the following sentence I had written about Stanley Milgram.
"Although Milgram's focus certainly wasn't on determining the causal factors of such obedience, to my knowledge, there exists no more clear and indisputable evidence of just how far people will go in order to obey."EMAIL: "Milgram did go into detail on this point in Obedience to Authority . . . In the second half of the book, after he's finished with his description of the experiment, Milgram does a cybernetic analysis of how hierarchical structures subvert individual people's agency and autonomy. I would very much recommend it to your attention."
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Day 18 - Diagnosis Free
For reasons too complex to be worth explaining, I was authorized by my Chain of Command to have 24 hours of "Special Liberty," beginning at 0700 today and ending at 0700 tomorrow. I will leave it to you to decide whether you think it possible for any one human or group of humans to actually grant liberty to an individual and say simply that "Special Liberty" means that a Sailor doesn't have to report for duty.
In any case, my "Special Liberty" granted me the benefit of sleeping in this morning, as well as allowing for the comfort of wearing civilian clothes while I underwent the extremely intrusive process that constitutes any valid psychological evaluation. Although the clinical psychologist assigned to me could not have been more pleasant or professional, such a procedure requires answering questions about the innermost details of one's psyche, to include talking about all of the following topics as well as many others:
Undergoing such a process myself was rather ironic in that it is the very task that the Navy has assigned for me to perform on those persons currently confined to the Navy's only boot camp, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois. I found it very interesting to be the one on the proverbial couch for a change, and I can even say that I gained insight from the experience. Even better, at the end of the process, the doctor confidently pronounced that I am free of any psychiatric illnesses or personality disorders. She also assured me that in addition to explaining her diagnostic conclusions, she would express in her report that she found me to be very forthright, open, and honest in answering her questions. Additionally, she said that she would make clear her belief that I am sincere in my request to be classified as a conscientious objector.
With another box checked off the list, the next step is for an "Investigating Officer" to be assigned to my request and for that person to conduct an informal hearing. If you missed my earlier post on the process or just want a refresher, you can click on the link for Day 11 - A How-To Guide and scroll about half-way down the page to view all the information I have on what these next events will entail.
In any case, my "Special Liberty" granted me the benefit of sleeping in this morning, as well as allowing for the comfort of wearing civilian clothes while I underwent the extremely intrusive process that constitutes any valid psychological evaluation. Although the clinical psychologist assigned to me could not have been more pleasant or professional, such a procedure requires answering questions about the innermost details of one's psyche, to include talking about all of the following topics as well as many others:
- sexual history
- sleep difficulties
- familial relationships
- gang involvement
- spending habits
- frequency, quantity, and purpose of having ingested various substances into one's body
- fears
- work ethic
- self-harming behavior
- nature of, and preferences about, one's social life
- grades in school
- risk-taking behavior
- hallucinations
- homicidal ideations
- changes in appetite
- physical, emotional, and sexual abuse history
- attention problems
- delinquent behaviors
- past mental health treatment
- marital history
- legal problems
Undergoing such a process myself was rather ironic in that it is the very task that the Navy has assigned for me to perform on those persons currently confined to the Navy's only boot camp, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois. I found it very interesting to be the one on the proverbial couch for a change, and I can even say that I gained insight from the experience. Even better, at the end of the process, the doctor confidently pronounced that I am free of any psychiatric illnesses or personality disorders. She also assured me that in addition to explaining her diagnostic conclusions, she would express in her report that she found me to be very forthright, open, and honest in answering her questions. Additionally, she said that she would make clear her belief that I am sincere in my request to be classified as a conscientious objector.
With another box checked off the list, the next step is for an "Investigating Officer" to be assigned to my request and for that person to conduct an informal hearing. If you missed my earlier post on the process or just want a refresher, you can click on the link for Day 11 - A How-To Guide and scroll about half-way down the page to view all the information I have on what these next events will entail.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Day 17 - "The Fate of the Detainees"
Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as saying, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I wonder what it is that Franklin would have said is deserved by those who forcefully limit the essential liberty of some for the sake of their own feeling of temporary safety?
With that idea in mind, I've thought it interesting to read, hear, and see that that the actions of the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay have again become headlines. However, GTMO as a buzzword sadly hasn't equated to any critical questioning of what is morally right concerning the liberty of the individuals confined there. This is clear from the following byline of a Miami Herald article that reads:
I believe this question alone has potentially monumental ramifications, but even still, I wonder if it was this same criterion of not wanting to "put US citizens at risk," by which the government decided to label those persons as "detainees" and confine them in the first place? And, was it this same avoidance of perceived risk that prompted the invasion of Iraq? What of Afghanistan? The list, of course, could go on ad infinitum.
However, beyond the possible insight to be gained from following this reasoning backward, I believe there's a more crucial question to ask. Whose liberty will next be violated, not on the basis of right and wrong, but as the result of an action being planned by government right now, in order to keep you safe?
With that idea in mind, I've thought it interesting to read, hear, and see that that the actions of the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay have again become headlines. However, GTMO as a buzzword sadly hasn't equated to any critical questioning of what is morally right concerning the liberty of the individuals confined there. This is clear from the following byline of a Miami Herald article that reads:
"With the fate of detainees still up in the air, the president will try to reassure the nation that his plan to close the prison camps at Guantánamo Bay will not put US citizens at risk."First, I think it's crucial to recognize that the phrase, "the fate of the detainees," refers to the life, liberty, and potential for pursuing happiness of hundreds of fellow humans. After all, every "detainee" is an individual person with friends, family, and loved ones, much like you and I. With this understanding, the explicit meaning of the sentence in which the phrase is used becomes vitally important. After all, the sentence makes clear that "the fate of the detainees" doesn't hinge upon the question of what is right or wrong, but rather, it rests on the perceived safety risk to those individuals who have been classified as citizens of the United States. What do you think? Should moral concerns about infringing on others' liberty lose their precedence when confronted with the pragmatic requirements deemed necessary to keep one specific people-group safe?
I believe this question alone has potentially monumental ramifications, but even still, I wonder if it was this same criterion of not wanting to "put US citizens at risk," by which the government decided to label those persons as "detainees" and confine them in the first place? And, was it this same avoidance of perceived risk that prompted the invasion of Iraq? What of Afghanistan? The list, of course, could go on ad infinitum.
However, beyond the possible insight to be gained from following this reasoning backward, I believe there's a more crucial question to ask. Whose liberty will next be violated, not on the basis of right and wrong, but as the result of an action being planned by government right now, in order to keep you safe?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Day 16 - Service or Slavery?
Several statements made by Art Carden in his article Conscription of Men, Women, and Resources caught my attention yesterday, and I have quoted the two key excerpts that I credit as the inspiration for today’s post.
As opposed to conscription in American history, I will instead focus on the current nature of military service and the government sanctioned “contracts” that bind members of the Armed Forces to their employer. Specifically, I wish to address the nature of my own "contractual" relationship with the Navy.
First, I wish to unequivocally establish as fact that I, being of sound mind, did enlist into the Navy by my own choice and not as the result of the coercion of any person or group. An equally true statement is that I no longer wish to remain employed by the Navy, yet I’m unable to quit my job without the potential penalty of imprisonment.
I admit and accept that my desire to no longer fulfill the terms to which I agreed may rightly call into question the trustworthiness of my word. I have weighed this potential cost to my reputation, and I’ve found it definitively lacking in comparison with the price required to support an organization and a cause that I believe is unjustified in its termination of countless human lives.
In my own mind, I’ve considered the question of which mistake I would rather confess to any children I may one day have. Would I rather tell them how I failed to live up to the specified number of years that I had promised to labor for a given employer, or that I continued to work for an organization even after I came to believe that it existed for an immoral purpose?
To me the choice is easy, and so I acknowledge that I personally, and no one else, am to blame for my decision to have enlisted in the Navy. I also recognize that I individually bear the responsibility for the fact that I wish to break my word and end my employment. That I have no intent to deny accountability for my desire does not mean that I think the government is justified in holding me to my promise under the threat of imprisonment.
In summary, although I haven’t broken my word, I have definitively expressed that I do not wish to live up to my promised tenure. This expression has been in the form of a request to be released from the terms to which I originally agreed.
Although I no longer desire to do so, each morning I report for duty as ordered, and I complete my assignments without protest. This, however, doesn’t equate to truly being there by choice. A person choosing between prison and work cannot be said to have freely chosen to work. I was not conscripted, but since I now remain employed against my will, is there really any difference?
“We can sing the praises of the ennobling and embiggening effects of time in the military or time in the peace corps, but this loses its luster when the ennobling and embiggening are done at the point of a gun. "Service" extracted at the point of a gun is not honorable. It is tragic.”
“Some may argue that this is an exercise in incendiary rhetoric, but it is also correct: compulsory service is slavery by definition. Call a spade a spade. Milton Friedman did when he referred to the conscripted army that was fighting in Vietnam as an army of slaves. They were: they went to Vietnam as a result of threats against life and limb. Some who took a principled stand against the war and in line with their convictions, like Muhammad Ali, were stripped of some of the most productive years of their lives.”
As opposed to conscription in American history, I will instead focus on the current nature of military service and the government sanctioned “contracts” that bind members of the Armed Forces to their employer. Specifically, I wish to address the nature of my own "contractual" relationship with the Navy.
First, I wish to unequivocally establish as fact that I, being of sound mind, did enlist into the Navy by my own choice and not as the result of the coercion of any person or group. An equally true statement is that I no longer wish to remain employed by the Navy, yet I’m unable to quit my job without the potential penalty of imprisonment.
I admit and accept that my desire to no longer fulfill the terms to which I agreed may rightly call into question the trustworthiness of my word. I have weighed this potential cost to my reputation, and I’ve found it definitively lacking in comparison with the price required to support an organization and a cause that I believe is unjustified in its termination of countless human lives.
In my own mind, I’ve considered the question of which mistake I would rather confess to any children I may one day have. Would I rather tell them how I failed to live up to the specified number of years that I had promised to labor for a given employer, or that I continued to work for an organization even after I came to believe that it existed for an immoral purpose?
To me the choice is easy, and so I acknowledge that I personally, and no one else, am to blame for my decision to have enlisted in the Navy. I also recognize that I individually bear the responsibility for the fact that I wish to break my word and end my employment. That I have no intent to deny accountability for my desire does not mean that I think the government is justified in holding me to my promise under the threat of imprisonment.
In summary, although I haven’t broken my word, I have definitively expressed that I do not wish to live up to my promised tenure. This expression has been in the form of a request to be released from the terms to which I originally agreed.
Although I no longer desire to do so, each morning I report for duty as ordered, and I complete my assignments without protest. This, however, doesn’t equate to truly being there by choice. A person choosing between prison and work cannot be said to have freely chosen to work. I was not conscripted, but since I now remain employed against my will, is there really any difference?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Day 15 - SECDEF on Safety
The following message is from the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense). I found the last paragraph to be particularly interesting.
ALCON:
(PARA) THE ?101 DAYS? BETWEEN MEMORIAL DAY AND LABOR DAY IS A PERIOD IN WHICH LEADERS NEED TO INTENSIFY THEIR SAFETY EFFORTS. IN THE SUMMER OF 2008, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TRAGICALLY LOST 87 SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN IN PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS. OVER HALF OF THESE COLLISIONS OCCURRED ON MOTORCYCLES.
(PARA) DURING THIS PERIOD OF HIGH RISK, I URGE LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS TO REMIND THEIR SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN, MARINES, AND CIVILIANS TO EXERCISE GOOD JUDGMENT AND DRIVE SAFELY. WE ALL KNOW THE KEY ELEMENTS FOR SAFE DRIVING, BUT THEY BEAR REPEATING. NEVER DRINK AND DRIVE. MAKE SURE ALL VEHICLE OCCUPANTS WEAR SEATBELTS. IF YOU RIDE A MOTORCYCLE, WEAR YOUR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT-IT SAVES LIVES. FINALLY, USE THE AVAILABLE TOOLS AND RESOURCES TO SAFELY PLAN FOR SUMMER TRAVEL.
(PARA) TAKING CARE OF OUR PEOPLE IS OUR HIGHEST CALLING. WE CAN AND WE MUST DO MORE TO STOP THIS NEEDLESS LOSS OF LIVES.
SINCERELY,
(Name)
END TEXT
UNCLASSIFIED
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Days 13 & 14 - A Presidential Quote
"War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today."It came as a surprise to me that this was written in a letter to a Navy friend by the late President, and one-time Sailor, John F. Kennedy. The quote is referenced on the website of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum about a third of the way down the page. I'm certainly not looking for prestige, and I've had the expectation from the start of this process that some people would undoubtedly hold me in quite the opposite regard.
Nevertheless, I do hope that the publication of my request is the cause of at least some questions as to why it is that we, as humans, wage wars, and what are other actions that can be morally justified and thus rightly instituted instead. If JFK was right in believing that war doesn't have to exist, what else is there?
While I believe that any war is immoral, my present situation makes the Iraq and Afghanistan wars particularly prescient for me. Therefore, I plan to share just one possible scenario by which American lives could have, and still can be, protected, without going to war. Hindsight is, of course, 20/20, but the fact that this possible solution still has not been implemented makes it particularly relevant in my mind.
In this brief discussion, I wish to suspend the very important, although not justifying, factors that prompted the 9/11 hijackers to enact their evil plans. My goal is to postulate just one possibility of what might have mitigated their evil, after their plans were already underway. I believe the answer can be found in two words, words that I believe are also the key to protection without war, individual self-defense. If there had been even one pistol in each of the cockpits of the hijacked planes, I think the damage done by the hijackers could realistically have been limited to the loss of their own lives. However, thousands of people died that day, and multiple times more have died since then.
Although the hijackers bear 100% of the responsibility for their actions, who is responsible for having limited the self-defense capabilities of the rest of the individuals aboard those planes? The answer, of course, is the United States government. The government, in claiming a monopoly on defense, so limited the capabilities of the other passengers and crew, that they were incapable and/or didn't feel responsible to try and defend themselves. In the aftermath of this tragedy, the U.S. government has remained unwilling to relinquish any power, and has instead expanded its restrictions on passengers and crew, while simultaneously ordering thousands of service members to use deadly force in two different wars that have resulted in an untold loss of human life.
I don't intend this to be an all-encompassing solution of a morally justified response to the disaster of 9/11, but I do hope that it has made you think and consider what might be an alternative to war in this, or any situation.
This post owes much to the writing and podcasts of Wes Bertrand, specifically Chapter 2, section three, of his book Complete Liberty. Available for free online reading here, or as a free podcast on iTunes.
See also The Myth of National Defense edited by Hans-Herman Hoppe.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Day 12 - I've Been Linked
Yesterday's careful rereading of the MILPERSMAN 1900-020 caused me to question whether it would be a problem that my psychological evaluation is scheduled with a civilian clinical psychologist. The cause for my concern was the statement from the instruction prescribing that the chaplain and the mental health professional be "members of a regular or reserve component of any of the Armed Forces." Since my appointment is currently scheduled with a civilian, I spoke with someone from the legal office today to confirm that this would not pose a problem. The legal representative stated that since the clinical psychologist is employed by the Navy, all requirements are met.
In this same conversation, I also inquired as to the identity of the Investigating Officer, whose role I detailed in yesterday's post. I was informed that I would be told this person's identity only after the psychiatric evaluation, which will determine whether or not I'm suffering from any "psychiatric disorders which would warrant recommendation for appropriate administrative action." Unless there are any unexpected developments, it appears my request is in limbo until my mental health appointment next Thursday.
On a slightly different note, my website has apparently attracted the attention of at least one person whom I hadn't directly contacted about it. Check out this reference to my request at The Holy Cause: A Christian Perspective on Liberty. I think those of you with an evangelical background will find this article and the comments to be particularly interesting.
In this same conversation, I also inquired as to the identity of the Investigating Officer, whose role I detailed in yesterday's post. I was informed that I would be told this person's identity only after the psychiatric evaluation, which will determine whether or not I'm suffering from any "psychiatric disorders which would warrant recommendation for appropriate administrative action." Unless there are any unexpected developments, it appears my request is in limbo until my mental health appointment next Thursday.
On a slightly different note, my website has apparently attracted the attention of at least one person whom I hadn't directly contacted about it. Check out this reference to my request at The Holy Cause: A Christian Perspective on Liberty. I think those of you with an evangelical background will find this article and the comments to be particularly interesting.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Day 11 - A How-To Guide
I offer today's post as an overview of what the military has dictated to be the process through which a service member may request to be classified as a conscientious objector.
The Department of Defense regulations regarding this issue are found in DOD Directive 1300.6, and the Navy guidance comes from MILPERSMAN 1900-020. All quotations within this post are from MILPERSMAN 1900-020. Before I begin my overview, I would like to respond to a few emails that I have received by highlighting the fact that the existence and nature of these instructions leave no question as to the following points:
My interview with the chaplain has been completed and is the topic of my post, Man of the Cloth. The expected date of my evaluation by a clinical psychologist is 21MAY09. In addition to these interviews a "lieutenant commander or above will be appointed, by the commanding officer (CO), as the Investigating Officer (IO)." In addition to a few other administrative tasks, the IO:
Numbers (1) and (4) pertain to the IO obtaining guidance from different Navy resources and counseling the applicant as to the potential loss of veteran's benefits that could result from refusing "to perform military duty or otherwise to follow lawful orders of competent military authority". The instruction describes the hearing as follows:
After reviewing the record for "completeness" and adding "comments and recommendations," the CO is to "forward the completed case file to NAVPERSCOM". It should also be noted that "comments are restricted to those matters contained in the record." As for who or what is the mysterious NAVPERSCOM, it's the abbreviation for Navy Personnel Command, located in Millington, TN, and tasked with handling the assignment of personnel within the Navy.
Thus the process ends, and I will either be discharged as a conscientious objector, or I won't. A final quote makes this point abundantly clear:
"Determination by NAVPERSCOM is final with respect to administrative separation."
The Department of Defense regulations regarding this issue are found in DOD Directive 1300.6, and the Navy guidance comes from MILPERSMAN 1900-020. All quotations within this post are from MILPERSMAN 1900-020. Before I begin my overview, I would like to respond to a few emails that I have received by highlighting the fact that the existence and nature of these instructions leave no question as to the following points:
- A request to be classified as a conscious objector is a completely legitimate, regulated, and accepted action that any enlisted person or officer may choose to exercise. A request for leave (vacation) is no more acceptable or legitimate than a request to be classified as a conscientious objector. Although leave requests are obviously made more frequently, both are rights guaranteed to the service member by the military itself.
- If I am classified as a conscientious objector and discharged, I would not be discharged simply because I wanted it to happen. If it happens, it will be done "by reason of Convenience of the Government - Conscientious Objection," and it will be an honorable discharge. According to the government's own rules, I cannot of my own volition terminate my employment; in other words, the government makes clear that I cannot break my contract. I hope that this makes clear to any interested persons that according to the rules and language of the military, I have not violated, backed out, broken, dishonored, reneged, or otherwise failed to fulfill the terms of my enlistment. The military is absolutely clear that if I'm discharged, it will be as a "convenience" to them, not as a favor to me. I wish to make the disclaimer that this response is strictly limited to the terms and conditions set forth by the military itself, and it is not an attempt to address the legitimacy of military employment contracts in principle.
- Implied within the previous two bullets is the fact that the military doesn't obligate itself, nor is it obligated by any other governmental body, to fulfill my request. Should I not be classified as a conscientious objector the military will continue my employment.
"a. . . . "A written report must be provided by both and attached as enclosures and part of the case file. If the applicant refuses to participate, is uncooperative, or unresponsive in the course of these interviews, this fact will be included in their statements.
b. The chaplain will provide opinion of the nature and basis of the applicant's claim, sincerity, and depth of conviction in the claim of conscientious objection, and a recommendation of disposition with the rationale for the conclusion.
c. The psychiatrist or clinical psychologist will provide a report or psychiatric disorders which would warrant treatment or disposition through medical channels or such personality disorder which would warrant recommendation for appropriate administrative separation action. Comments concerning the sincerity or credibility of the applicant's claimed convictions may also be included."
My interview with the chaplain has been completed and is the topic of my post, Man of the Cloth. The expected date of my evaluation by a clinical psychologist is 21MAY09. In addition to these interviews a "lieutenant commander or above will be appointed, by the commanding officer (CO), as the Investigating Officer (IO)." In addition to a few other administrative tasks, the IO:
"(2) will conduct a hearing on the application to afford the applicant an opportunity to present any evidence desired in support of the application. This will help the hearing officer to ascertain and assemble all relevant facts to create a comprehensive record, and to facilitate an informed recommendation to the CO.
(3) will actively and critically examine the applicant's beliefs, and any failure or refusal to submit to questioning under oath or affirmation. Should the applicant fail to appear, the IO may proceed in the applicant's absence as the applicant is considered to have waived the right for appearance."
Numbers (1) and (4) pertain to the IO obtaining guidance from different Navy resources and counseling the applicant as to the potential loss of veteran's benefits that could result from refusing "to perform military duty or otherwise to follow lawful orders of competent military authority". The instruction describes the hearing as follows:
Also I was most comforted to read that "the hearing is not an adversary (sic) proceeding." The IO is next tasked with providing a written report that summarizes the hearing. All the documentation is then organized and a copy is given to the CO and to the applicant. The applicant then has five working days to submit a rebuttal to the investigating officer.
"The hearing will be informal in character and the rules of evidence employed by a court-martial do not apply, except that all oral testimony presented shall be under oath or affirmation. Any relevant evidence may be received. Statements obtained from persons not present at the hearing need not be made under oath or affirmation."
After reviewing the record for "completeness" and adding "comments and recommendations," the CO is to "forward the completed case file to NAVPERSCOM". It should also be noted that "comments are restricted to those matters contained in the record." As for who or what is the mysterious NAVPERSCOM, it's the abbreviation for Navy Personnel Command, located in Millington, TN, and tasked with handling the assignment of personnel within the Navy.
Thus the process ends, and I will either be discharged as a conscientious objector, or I won't. A final quote makes this point abundantly clear:
"Determination by NAVPERSCOM is final with respect to administrative separation."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Day 10 - A Visual Explanation
I'm physically and emotionally exhausted after my past two nights of introspection and writing that culminated in yesterday's post. My mood is somber, but peaceful, after having admitted to what I believe was my contribution to the injustice that continues in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
As for the progress of my request, I again have nothing to report. I'm waiting to find out who the Command will assign as the "investigating officer" of my conscientious objection, and so for now, the next anticipated event in this process will be my psychiatric evaluation on the 21st of May. If there is no other news tomorrow, I plan to post an overview of the conscientious objection procedure as detailed in the Department of Defense and Navy instructions.
After so many written words attempting to explain my beliefs, I'll end this entry with what I think is an excellent visual explanation of the ideas behind my action.
As for the progress of my request, I again have nothing to report. I'm waiting to find out who the Command will assign as the "investigating officer" of my conscientious objection, and so for now, the next anticipated event in this process will be my psychiatric evaluation on the 21st of May. If there is no other news tomorrow, I plan to post an overview of the conscientious objection procedure as detailed in the Department of Defense and Navy instructions.
After so many written words attempting to explain my beliefs, I'll end this entry with what I think is an excellent visual explanation of the ideas behind my action.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Behind the Wire: An Insider's Reflections on Gitmo
*This is a much revised and updated version of the original May 12, 2009 post.
After having been deployed for six months as a member of the medical team assigned to the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I can easily say that Gitmo is the most hate-filled place I have ever experienced. The animosity I felt in the "camps" on a daily basis was almost palpable, and it often required a very conscious effort to not escalate the hostility.
Because of the powerful emotions involved, it has taken me more than a year to finally identify the key factors that prevented me from previously being able to question the justification of Gitmo. During the six months in which I saw other human beings confined to cages, I began to undertake an intense study of the concepts of liberty and natural rights. Over the course of the year that followed, this investigation led me to the whole-hearted conviction that war is immoral. Amazingly, even after such a distinct transformation, it took still more time to apply my new understanding to my own role in Gitmo.
Honestly, I cannot imagine what the outcome would have been if these beliefs had crystallized while I remained on the island. How could I have coped with the motto, “Honor bound to defend freedom,” while I daily worked in support of restricting others’ liberty? Thankfully, in coming home, the intermittently reinforced pattern of adrenaline, heightened emotions, and hyper-vigilance has subsided. I believe it was only well after this emotional roller coaster had leveled out that I could even begin to understand the meaning of all that I had seen and experienced.
Initially, one of the largest obstacles to evaluating what happened in Gitmo was my own natural instinct to be personally defensive instead of objectively analytical. To this end, I generally maintained a policy of avoidance. For the most part, I wouldn’t talk about my experience unless prompted by others to do so. My wife recently confirmed this as my modus operandi when she told me that she learned more about Gitmo from hearing me talk to others than she ever did from what I volunteered to her at home. Thankfully, this policy of avoiding the issue wasn’t that easy given all the news stories, op-ed pieces, and many people's eagerness to get on a soapbox in conversation.
As a result, I passionately and sometimes heatedly defended the fact that I hadn't tortured anybody. Furthermore, when pressed, I expressed how very unjust I thought it was that I had been expected to serve at the beck and call of "detainees". My talking points on this aspect of Gitmo revolved around the audacity of "detainee" complaints. After all, I had repeatedly brought them medication on their whim, and we had been so careful not to make noise during their "Call to Prayer".
I used to express my outrage at having felt forced to cater to the "detainees" because I had been taught to see them as an enemy that would stop at nothing short of the annihilation of my entire culture. Throughout these conversations, I gave innumerable illustrations of what I felt were the many unjustified actions in favor of the “detainees”. One example was that the “detainees” had complained that the coffee was cold by the time it arrived from the galley. To my chagrin, the guards were given a coffee machine in the camp from which to directly dispense coffee for the “detainees”.
Because the dehumanization that took place was so effective, I was most infuriated by the caged men’s ingratitude for the exceptional services that we provided. Of course, I felt this way despite the fact that I was helping to keep these same men so completely confined that many no longer had the will to live. In stark contrast, I can now at least theoretically understand how insultingly inconsequential such matters as coffee and Advil are in comparison to the isolation the “detainees” experience everyday. How appreciative can you expect someone to be when he is confined to a concrete cell? I think that this is an even more apropos question when the confined person was abducted by individuals who speak a different language and are of a different race, who came to his country armed with true weapons of mass destruction, who kidnapped him for being uncooperative or even resistant, and who all the while claimed they were only doing what was best for him and his neighbors.
For months, even the formation of such a poignant question was impossible for me. Instead, I remained blinded, in part by my dehumanized view of the “detainees”, but also as a result of having an obedience-based understanding of morality. Since then, my study of Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison study, through his book The Lucifer Effect, as well as Stanley Milgram’s shock experiment, as analyzed in The Perils of Obedience, have both provided significant insight into how I became part of such an evil system so easily.
With the understanding I’ve gained from these social psychologists, I no longer see it as surprising that I didn’t question the true dynamics at play in Gitmo. After all, I’d been indoctrinated since childhood to obey authority, and I’d been specifically programmed for more than two years in the Navy to follow orders. Additionally, those in my Chain of Command further subdued any skepticism I had by inducing fear and dehumanizing those involved. This continues to happen through the indistinct labeling of those detained as “deadly enemies” who are collectivized under the heading “detainees” and are only individually referenced by their assigned “Internment Security Numbers”.
In his article, The Perils of Obedience, Stanley Milgram offers an excellent summary of the total effect such factors can have on people in situations similar to Gitmo when he writes, “The most far-reaching consequence is that a person feels responsible to the authority directing him but feels no responsibility for the content of the actions that the authority prescribes.”
This replacement of personal responsibility with the excuse of obedience is why I so adamantly clung to my defense of my role in Gitmo. Even after I accepted that war is immoral, I knew that if I were to admit to myself that I personally had not acted morally, there would be an extremely high price to pay within my own conscience. To try and dispel any lingering doubts, I repeatedly tried to console myself with the fact that I didn’t have a choice since I was following orders, and that even if war is immoral, surely the confinement of criminals doesn’t violate the concept of liberty that I now cherish. Nevertheless, my objective moral analysis of my role in Gitmo has led me to the following three questions that I think should be used to decide this issue once and for all.
Having established these three questions as my standard, I admit that I do not have, nor am I aware of anyone having, all the information necessary to determine the guilt or innocence of each person detained in Gitmo. Therefore, I honestly confess that I have no basis on which to claim justification for my actions in continuing the confinement of fellow human beings while I was there.
With what I have related about my experience in Gitmo as context, I encourage you to read the request I have filed with the Navy to be classified as a conscientious objector and discharged. As I state in my application, “Overall, I wish to live my life in accordance with what I believe to be morally right.”
http://coapplication.blogspot.com
After having been deployed for six months as a member of the medical team assigned to the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I can easily say that Gitmo is the most hate-filled place I have ever experienced. The animosity I felt in the "camps" on a daily basis was almost palpable, and it often required a very conscious effort to not escalate the hostility.
Because of the powerful emotions involved, it has taken me more than a year to finally identify the key factors that prevented me from previously being able to question the justification of Gitmo. During the six months in which I saw other human beings confined to cages, I began to undertake an intense study of the concepts of liberty and natural rights. Over the course of the year that followed, this investigation led me to the whole-hearted conviction that war is immoral. Amazingly, even after such a distinct transformation, it took still more time to apply my new understanding to my own role in Gitmo.
Honestly, I cannot imagine what the outcome would have been if these beliefs had crystallized while I remained on the island. How could I have coped with the motto, “Honor bound to defend freedom,” while I daily worked in support of restricting others’ liberty? Thankfully, in coming home, the intermittently reinforced pattern of adrenaline, heightened emotions, and hyper-vigilance has subsided. I believe it was only well after this emotional roller coaster had leveled out that I could even begin to understand the meaning of all that I had seen and experienced.
Initially, one of the largest obstacles to evaluating what happened in Gitmo was my own natural instinct to be personally defensive instead of objectively analytical. To this end, I generally maintained a policy of avoidance. For the most part, I wouldn’t talk about my experience unless prompted by others to do so. My wife recently confirmed this as my modus operandi when she told me that she learned more about Gitmo from hearing me talk to others than she ever did from what I volunteered to her at home. Thankfully, this policy of avoiding the issue wasn’t that easy given all the news stories, op-ed pieces, and many people's eagerness to get on a soapbox in conversation.
As a result, I passionately and sometimes heatedly defended the fact that I hadn't tortured anybody. Furthermore, when pressed, I expressed how very unjust I thought it was that I had been expected to serve at the beck and call of "detainees". My talking points on this aspect of Gitmo revolved around the audacity of "detainee" complaints. After all, I had repeatedly brought them medication on their whim, and we had been so careful not to make noise during their "Call to Prayer".
I used to express my outrage at having felt forced to cater to the "detainees" because I had been taught to see them as an enemy that would stop at nothing short of the annihilation of my entire culture. Throughout these conversations, I gave innumerable illustrations of what I felt were the many unjustified actions in favor of the “detainees”. One example was that the “detainees” had complained that the coffee was cold by the time it arrived from the galley. To my chagrin, the guards were given a coffee machine in the camp from which to directly dispense coffee for the “detainees”.
Because the dehumanization that took place was so effective, I was most infuriated by the caged men’s ingratitude for the exceptional services that we provided. Of course, I felt this way despite the fact that I was helping to keep these same men so completely confined that many no longer had the will to live. In stark contrast, I can now at least theoretically understand how insultingly inconsequential such matters as coffee and Advil are in comparison to the isolation the “detainees” experience everyday. How appreciative can you expect someone to be when he is confined to a concrete cell? I think that this is an even more apropos question when the confined person was abducted by individuals who speak a different language and are of a different race, who came to his country armed with true weapons of mass destruction, who kidnapped him for being uncooperative or even resistant, and who all the while claimed they were only doing what was best for him and his neighbors.
For months, even the formation of such a poignant question was impossible for me. Instead, I remained blinded, in part by my dehumanized view of the “detainees”, but also as a result of having an obedience-based understanding of morality. Since then, my study of Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison study, through his book The Lucifer Effect, as well as Stanley Milgram’s shock experiment, as analyzed in The Perils of Obedience, have both provided significant insight into how I became part of such an evil system so easily.
With the understanding I’ve gained from these social psychologists, I no longer see it as surprising that I didn’t question the true dynamics at play in Gitmo. After all, I’d been indoctrinated since childhood to obey authority, and I’d been specifically programmed for more than two years in the Navy to follow orders. Additionally, those in my Chain of Command further subdued any skepticism I had by inducing fear and dehumanizing those involved. This continues to happen through the indistinct labeling of those detained as “deadly enemies” who are collectivized under the heading “detainees” and are only individually referenced by their assigned “Internment Security Numbers”.
In his article, The Perils of Obedience, Stanley Milgram offers an excellent summary of the total effect such factors can have on people in situations similar to Gitmo when he writes, “The most far-reaching consequence is that a person feels responsible to the authority directing him but feels no responsibility for the content of the actions that the authority prescribes.”
This replacement of personal responsibility with the excuse of obedience is why I so adamantly clung to my defense of my role in Gitmo. Even after I accepted that war is immoral, I knew that if I were to admit to myself that I personally had not acted morally, there would be an extremely high price to pay within my own conscience. To try and dispel any lingering doubts, I repeatedly tried to console myself with the fact that I didn’t have a choice since I was following orders, and that even if war is immoral, surely the confinement of criminals doesn’t violate the concept of liberty that I now cherish. Nevertheless, my objective moral analysis of my role in Gitmo has led me to the following three questions that I think should be used to decide this issue once and for all.
1. Are the "detainees" in Gitmo, or anywhere else for that matter, guilty of crimes that merit the past and continuing restriction of their liberty?
2. Are there objective grounds upon which the guilt referenced in the first question has been established? If not, is evidence to this end being sought? Also is it unjust to restrict their liberty whilst the question of their guilt remains unanswered? The previous question references the commonly recognized feature of the American judicial system that the accused are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a trial. Does such a principle apply to all humanity, or should it only apply to the citizens of a country in which the government enumerates it, as in the United States?
3. The final question is much more subjective; however, I believe it is no less powerful or important to understanding the issue. What would you do if tens of thousands of people, armed with deadly force and from a completely different culture than you, suddenly moved within miles of where you lived, worked, and raised your children?
Having established these three questions as my standard, I admit that I do not have, nor am I aware of anyone having, all the information necessary to determine the guilt or innocence of each person detained in Gitmo. Therefore, I honestly confess that I have no basis on which to claim justification for my actions in continuing the confinement of fellow human beings while I was there.
With what I have related about my experience in Gitmo as context, I encourage you to read the request I have filed with the Navy to be classified as a conscientious objector and discharged. As I state in my application, “Overall, I wish to live my life in accordance with what I believe to be morally right.”
http://coapplication.blogspot.com
Day 9 - Reflections on GTMO
I have no word on the progress of my request.
The good news is that I believe that today's post offers my best explanation of what I believe to be true regarding the question of the justification of both my personal actions, and the overall military operation, at the Detention Center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
After having spent six months deployed as a member of the medical team assigned to the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I can easily say that GTMO is the most hate-filled place I have ever experienced. The animosity I felt in the "camps" on a daily basis was almost palpable, and it often required a very conscious effort not to escalate the hostility. Almost any other place in the world where sworn enemies are in such close proximity, the aggression leads to death, whereas, in GTMO the hatred just festers.
As I look back more than a year later, I believe it was predominantly these extreme emotional factors that prevented me from being able to more objectively question the justification for GTMO while I was still there. Although it lacks any reference to the complexity of the issues, perhaps the most applicable metaphor is that I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Or in this case, I wasn’t thinking about why all those men were “detained”, when the man in the cage in front of me was screaming obscenities and pounding on the wall.
Honestly, I cannot imagine what the outcome would have been if my beliefs had changed while I remained on the island. How could I have coped with the motto, “honor bound to defend freedom,” while I daily worked in support of restricting others’ liberty? Thankfully, in coming home, the intermittently reinforced pattern of adrenaline, heightened emotions, and hyper-vigilance subsided. Personally, I believe it was only after this that I could begin to question the meaning of all that I saw and experienced.
As I suspect is typical of any shift in a life-long and emotionally charged belief, the largest obstacle for me to overcome was my own natural instinct to be personally defensive instead of objectively analytical. To this end, I think my best defense was simply not talking about my experience unless prompted by others. Thankfully, given all the news stories, op-ed pieces, and many people's eagerness to get on their own personal soapboxes in conversation, there was little possibility of avoiding the topic of what was happening in Guantanamo Bay.
As a result of these promptings, on multiple occasions I passionately and sometimes heatedly defended the fact that I hadn't tortured anybody. Furthermore, when pressed, I expressed how I thought it very unjust that I had to serve at the beck and call of "detainees". My talking points on this specific aspect of GTMO emphasized the audacity of "detainee" complaints. After all, I had to bring them medication on their whim and not make noise during their "Call to Prayer". When home, I expressed my outrage at having felt forced to cater to the very "detainees" that I was taught to believe were the enemy who would stop at nothing short of the annihilation of my entire culture. Throughout these conversations, I gave innumerable illustrations of other matters that I felt were unjustified in favor of the “detainees”. One such example was that the “detainees” had complained that the coffee was cold by the time it arrived from the galley. To my chagrin, the guards were given a coffee machine in the camp from which to directly dispense coffee for the “detainees”.
There is likely no better testimony of the power and influence of the propaganda involved, than that it was the ingratitude of the “detainees” that so infuriated me. In stark contrast, I can now at least theoretically understand how infinitely inconsequential such matters as coffee and Advil are in comparison to the isolation the “detainees” experience everyday. What value are all the medicines in the world if you live in a concrete cell, thousands of miles away from where you were abducted by people of a different race, who came to your country armed with weapons capable of true mass destruction?
Although this is an extremely poignant question, for months I remained too emotionally attached to my personal experiences to even begin to formulate it, let alone entertain it as valid. Instead, I clung to my adamant defense of my role in GTMO, even after I accepted that war is immoral. To me, the reality was that I had personally participated in confining others against their will, and I knew that if I were to admit to myself that I had not done this in support of a just cause, there would be a high price to pay within my conscience. Since coming to that realization, I have repeatedly tried to dispel such doubts by telling myself that even if war is immoral, surely the confinement of criminals doesn’t violate the concept of liberty I have come to cherish.
Nevertheless, my growing skepticism of government, and my critical thinking about GTMO, has led me to the following three questions that I think should be used to decide the issue once and for all.
Having established these three
questions as my standard, I admit that I do not have, nor am I aware of anyone having, all the information necessary to determine the guilt or innocence of each detained person. Therefore, I honestly confess that I have no basis on which to claim justification for my personal actions in continuing the confinement of fellow human beings in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
If you have been interested enough to read this far, I would greatly appreciate your feedback as this is a particularly meaningful post to me. Do you agree with my conclusion? Do you have questions about anything that I referenced? What do you think of the overall military operation in GTMO? What do you think of my personal involvement? Please don't hesitate to leave a comment or to email me by clicking here.
If you haven't read it, my official application to request discharge is linked here.
The good news is that I believe that today's post offers my best explanation of what I believe to be true regarding the question of the justification of both my personal actions, and the overall military operation, at the Detention Center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
_________________________
After having spent six months deployed as a member of the medical team assigned to the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I can easily say that GTMO is the most hate-filled place I have ever experienced. The animosity I felt in the "camps" on a daily basis was almost palpable, and it often required a very conscious effort not to escalate the hostility. Almost any other place in the world where sworn enemies are in such close proximity, the aggression leads to death, whereas, in GTMO the hatred just festers.
As I look back more than a year later, I believe it was predominantly these extreme emotional factors that prevented me from being able to more objectively question the justification for GTMO while I was still there. Although it lacks any reference to the complexity of the issues, perhaps the most applicable metaphor is that I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Or in this case, I wasn’t thinking about why all those men were “detained”, when the man in the cage in front of me was screaming obscenities and pounding on the wall.
Honestly, I cannot imagine what the outcome would have been if my beliefs had changed while I remained on the island. How could I have coped with the motto, “honor bound to defend freedom,” while I daily worked in support of restricting others’ liberty? Thankfully, in coming home, the intermittently reinforced pattern of adrenaline, heightened emotions, and hyper-vigilance subsided. Personally, I believe it was only after this that I could begin to question the meaning of all that I saw and experienced.
As I suspect is typical of any shift in a life-long and emotionally charged belief, the largest obstacle for me to overcome was my own natural instinct to be personally defensive instead of objectively analytical. To this end, I think my best defense was simply not talking about my experience unless prompted by others. Thankfully, given all the news stories, op-ed pieces, and many people's eagerness to get on their own personal soapboxes in conversation, there was little possibility of avoiding the topic of what was happening in Guantanamo Bay.
As a result of these promptings, on multiple occasions I passionately and sometimes heatedly defended the fact that I hadn't tortured anybody. Furthermore, when pressed, I expressed how I thought it very unjust that I had to serve at the beck and call of "detainees". My talking points on this specific aspect of GTMO emphasized the audacity of "detainee" complaints. After all, I had to bring them medication on their whim and not make noise during their "Call to Prayer". When home, I expressed my outrage at having felt forced to cater to the very "detainees" that I was taught to believe were the enemy who would stop at nothing short of the annihilation of my entire culture. Throughout these conversations, I gave innumerable illustrations of other matters that I felt were unjustified in favor of the “detainees”. One such example was that the “detainees” had complained that the coffee was cold by the time it arrived from the galley. To my chagrin, the guards were given a coffee machine in the camp from which to directly dispense coffee for the “detainees”.
There is likely no better testimony of the power and influence of the propaganda involved, than that it was the ingratitude of the “detainees” that so infuriated me. In stark contrast, I can now at least theoretically understand how infinitely inconsequential such matters as coffee and Advil are in comparison to the isolation the “detainees” experience everyday. What value are all the medicines in the world if you live in a concrete cell, thousands of miles away from where you were abducted by people of a different race, who came to your country armed with weapons capable of true mass destruction?
Although this is an extremely poignant question, for months I remained too emotionally attached to my personal experiences to even begin to formulate it, let alone entertain it as valid. Instead, I clung to my adamant defense of my role in GTMO, even after I accepted that war is immoral. To me, the reality was that I had personally participated in confining others against their will, and I knew that if I were to admit to myself that I had not done this in support of a just cause, there would be a high price to pay within my conscience. Since coming to that realization, I have repeatedly tried to dispel such doubts by telling myself that even if war is immoral, surely the confinement of criminals doesn’t violate the concept of liberty I have come to cherish.
Nevertheless, my growing skepticism of government, and my critical thinking about GTMO, has led me to the following three questions that I think should be used to decide the issue once and for all.
1. Are the "detainees" in GTMO, or anywhere else for that matter, guilty of crimes that merit the past and continuing restriction of their liberty?
2. Are there objective grounds upon which the guilt referenced in the first question has been established? If not, is evidence to this end being sought, and is it just to restrict their liberty whilst the question of their guilt remains unanswered? The latter question references the commonly recognized feature of the American judicial system that the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Does such a principle apply to all humanity, or should it only apply for the citizens of a country in which the government enumerates it, as in the United States?
3. The final question is much more subjective, and I don't believe it has the practical application value that the previous questions offer; however, I believe it is no less powerful or important to understanding the issue. What would you do if tens of thousands of people, armed with deadly force, and from a completely different culture than yourself, suddenly moved within miles of where you lived, worked, and raised your children?
Having established these three
questions as my standard, I admit that I do not have, nor am I aware of anyone having, all the information necessary to determine the guilt or innocence of each detained person. Therefore, I honestly confess that I have no basis on which to claim justification for my personal actions in continuing the confinement of fellow human beings in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.If you have been interested enough to read this far, I would greatly appreciate your feedback as this is a particularly meaningful post to me. Do you agree with my conclusion? Do you have questions about anything that I referenced? What do you think of the overall military operation in GTMO? What do you think of my personal involvement? Please don't hesitate to leave a comment or to email me by clicking here.
If you haven't read it, my official application to request discharge is linked here.
Day 8 - Question
As is not altogether unexpected, I have no progress to report as regards my request, and in fact I didn't even have a single interaction with either of the Chiefs or anyone else directly involved in the process. That said, I still wanted to share what had me so preoccupied as to not actually make this post last night. In responding to an email that I had sent out to a number of friends and family alerting them of my website, and my request to be discharged, one person wrote back and made the following statement:
In addition, I want to use this post to focus on the significance of the fact that in all my interactions, there has been only one individual who made personal the moral question of my involvement in GTMO. That this is the case, speaks much of the unthinking manner in which so many people acquiesce and accept any action of the U.S. government as justified. Or, at least as is more common in my circles, the automatic acceptance of any military action, even if social and fiscal policy are exempt from this blind approval.
Although the media frequently questions the government's justifications for GTMO, what is unusual, and significant, is that it's so rare for an individual member of the military to be questioned about their personal justification for her or his involvement and actions. After all, what action could the U.S. military take, without the obedience of myriad individual service members?
"(I) have thought of you often since you enlisted, and wondered at how you, or anyone, could be at Guantanamo and not rebel at the immorality of what was taking place there,"The implied question made me do a double-take for multiple reasons, and I spent the remainder of my waking night thinking and writing a response. Although there is still more work to be done on my reply, I wanted to at least give a preview of my future post.
In addition, I want to use this post to focus on the significance of the fact that in all my interactions, there has been only one individual who made personal the moral question of my involvement in GTMO. That this is the case, speaks much of the unthinking manner in which so many people acquiesce and accept any action of the U.S. government as justified. Or, at least as is more common in my circles, the automatic acceptance of any military action, even if social and fiscal policy are exempt from this blind approval.
Although the media frequently questions the government's justifications for GTMO, what is unusual, and significant, is that it's so rare for an individual member of the military to be questioned about their personal justification for her or his involvement and actions. After all, what action could the U.S. military take, without the obedience of myriad individual service members?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Days 6 & 7 - Online Application
My official request to be classified as a conscientious objector is now available both by clicking the title of this post and also through the link under my picture. In making my application public, I expect readers to gain a basic understanding of how my beliefs about war have crystallized. Even more so, as opposed to reiterating the many and frequent inquiries into the justification of a specific military engagement, I hope that my application will bring to the forefront the rarely asked question of whether or not war is moral.
To this end, I encourage you to further the discussion of this issue by commenting on this or any of my posts. If I receive enough interest and response I will look further into adding a discussion board to my website. In the meantime, I would also enjoy hearing your thoughts and questions via email at
warisimmoral@gmail.com
Finally, I want to thank an anonymous volunteer for the technical support that has helped to make this website a reality.
To this end, I encourage you to further the discussion of this issue by commenting on this or any of my posts. If I receive enough interest and response I will look further into adding a discussion board to my website. In the meantime, I would also enjoy hearing your thoughts and questions via email at
warisimmoral@gmail.com
Finally, I want to thank an anonymous volunteer for the technical support that has helped to make this website a reality.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Day 5 - Memorandum for the Record
Only minutes before ending an otherwise uneventful workday, my Chief approached me with a typed page in hand. The page read as follows:
From: Leading Chief Petty Officer, Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes USS TRANQUILLITY
To: HM2 Lakemacher
Subj: FAILURE TO USE CHAIN OF COMMAND
1. The following is provided for documentation purposes:
On 01 May 09 at or around 1400 HM2 Lakemacher entered the Command Suite of NHCGL with intentions to submit a request directly to the Commanding Officer. In the absence of the Commanding Officer the member submitted the request directly to the Executive Officer. HM2 Lakemacher did not use his Chain of Command in this process and is well aware of the Navy's policy on using the Chain of Command and submitting request (sic).
05 May 09 at or around 10:16 am HM2 Lakemacher drafted and sent an email to the Executive Officer without the consent or knowledge of his Chain of Command.
2. This memorandum is to inform HM2 Lakemacher that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. Consistent behavior of this type may result in disciplinary actions.
(Name Included)
Copy to:
Member
After reading the document, I was unsure what to do next and several moments of silence elapsed as I waited and looked at the Chief. He eventually stated that I needed to sign the page. Looking at the document (replicated exactly above, including the absence of the Chief's signature), I was perplexed as to where to sign, and what exactly my signature was supposed to represent; however, I certainly didn't want to risk prolonging what felt to me to be a somewhat awkward situation. Therefore, despite my lack of clarity, I made my best guess about why I was asked to sign, and then printed "RECEIVED 08 MAY 09", followed by my signature and lastly my printed name, all penned under the last word on the page "Member".
The few minutes in which this exchange took place is the full extent of the interaction I had today with my Chain of Command regarding my application. With my Memorandum in tow, I left the base. Week one completed.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to read about what's happening in my life, and I am appreciative of the ever-increasing feedback I have been receiving in email. I'll do my best to respond to each of you. Despite how firmly I now believe that war is immoral, I was still rather nervous about the reactions that friends and family would have to this news. I'm truly grateful for the respect, concern, and support that everyone has shown thus far. Thank you.
06 May 2009
Memorandum for the RecordFrom: Leading Chief Petty Officer, Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes USS TRANQUILLITY
To: HM2 Lakemacher
Subj: FAILURE TO USE CHAIN OF COMMAND
1. The following is provided for documentation purposes:
On 01 May 09 at or around 1400 HM2 Lakemacher entered the Command Suite of NHCGL with intentions to submit a request directly to the Commanding Officer. In the absence of the Commanding Officer the member submitted the request directly to the Executive Officer. HM2 Lakemacher did not use his Chain of Command in this process and is well aware of the Navy's policy on using the Chain of Command and submitting request (sic).
05 May 09 at or around 10:16 am HM2 Lakemacher drafted and sent an email to the Executive Officer without the consent or knowledge of his Chain of Command.
2. This memorandum is to inform HM2 Lakemacher that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. Consistent behavior of this type may result in disciplinary actions.
(Name Included)
Copy to:
Member
After reading the document, I was unsure what to do next and several moments of silence elapsed as I waited and looked at the Chief. He eventually stated that I needed to sign the page. Looking at the document (replicated exactly above, including the absence of the Chief's signature), I was perplexed as to where to sign, and what exactly my signature was supposed to represent; however, I certainly didn't want to risk prolonging what felt to me to be a somewhat awkward situation. Therefore, despite my lack of clarity, I made my best guess about why I was asked to sign, and then printed "RECEIVED 08 MAY 09", followed by my signature and lastly my printed name, all penned under the last word on the page "Member".
The few minutes in which this exchange took place is the full extent of the interaction I had today with my Chain of Command regarding my application. With my Memorandum in tow, I left the base. Week one completed.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to read about what's happening in my life, and I am appreciative of the ever-increasing feedback I have been receiving in email. I'll do my best to respond to each of you. Despite how firmly I now believe that war is immoral, I was still rather nervous about the reactions that friends and family would have to this news. I'm truly grateful for the respect, concern, and support that everyone has shown thus far. Thank you.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Day 4 - Man of the Cloth
I was thrilled at 10:27 this morning to receive an email from my Chief telling me to report to Command Legal. Action. Unsure exactly what to expect, I headed promptly from my office to report as ordered on the other side of the base. After introductions were made, I was informed that my application had been reviewed by the Command, but there was yet one more form requiring my signature. The legalese I readily endorsed was as follows:
Exciting prose, I know. Better news awaited in the conversation that followed, as I was directed to meet with the Chaplain. The Chaplain interview is a prerequisite for being classified as a conscientious objector, whether or not religious reasons are listed as the grounds for discharge. In the words of the Department of Defense Instruction 1300.06,
Given the above description, I wasn't exactly sure what to expect from this interview, but as it turned out, I left pleasantly surprised at how well it had gone. The Chaplain began by explaining that he found the essays I had written for my application to be so detailed and thorough that he honestly had very few questions regarding what it is that I believe. After further conversation, he made the very deliberate statement that he was convinced that I believed my world view had changed, and he thought that I was honestly trying to align my actions with that change. I clearly understood the not-so-subtle implication of his obviously Christian world view to be that he believed I was going through a phase that would eventually fizzle out, whether in my lifetime or when I faced "the Christian Deity" on judgment day. The ominous insinuation that there may be fire and brimstone in my future if I don't change my ways didn't have me breaking a sweat, nor do I hold it against him for doing what he thinks is best and right. In fact, I feel only gratitude to the Chaplain for his assurance that he would endorse the authenticity of my beliefs and thereby my application.
To add to the fantastic news of the day, I also scheduled an appointment for my other mandated interview, this one with a clinical psychologist. I wonder if anyone has ever felt so much anticipation for a psychiatric evaluation? In any case, if there's no other news, there will be more on that tomorrow.
"The authority to request this information is derived from 50 U.S.C. 456j and 38 U.S.C. 3103, and 5 U.S.C. 301, departmental regulations. The purpose of this application is to allow myself to apply for conscientious objector status. This application is completely voluntary; however, failure to provide the required information would result in an inability to process this request and I would not be able to receive the requested status."
Exciting prose, I know. Better news awaited in the conversation that followed, as I was directed to meet with the Chaplain. The Chaplain interview is a prerequisite for being classified as a conscientious objector, whether or not religious reasons are listed as the grounds for discharge. In the words of the Department of Defense Instruction 1300.06,
"The applicant shall be personally interviewed by a chaplain who shall submit a written opinion as to the nature and basis of the applicant's claim, and as to the applicant's sincerity and depth of conviction. The chaplain's report shall include the reasons for the conclusions contained within the report."
Given the above description, I wasn't exactly sure what to expect from this interview, but as it turned out, I left pleasantly surprised at how well it had gone. The Chaplain began by explaining that he found the essays I had written for my application to be so detailed and thorough that he honestly had very few questions regarding what it is that I believe. After further conversation, he made the very deliberate statement that he was convinced that I believed my world view had changed, and he thought that I was honestly trying to align my actions with that change. I clearly understood the not-so-subtle implication of his obviously Christian world view to be that he believed I was going through a phase that would eventually fizzle out, whether in my lifetime or when I faced "the Christian Deity" on judgment day. The ominous insinuation that there may be fire and brimstone in my future if I don't change my ways didn't have me breaking a sweat, nor do I hold it against him for doing what he thinks is best and right. In fact, I feel only gratitude to the Chaplain for his assurance that he would endorse the authenticity of my beliefs and thereby my application.
To add to the fantastic news of the day, I also scheduled an appointment for my other mandated interview, this one with a clinical psychologist. I wonder if anyone has ever felt so much anticipation for a psychiatric evaluation? In any case, if there's no other news, there will be more on that tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Day 3 - Review
There is no news today regarding the progress of my application, and therefore, I'll devote today's post to providing some additional information on the events of the previous two days.
Day 1 - The Executive Suite
When I submitted my application on Monday, it seemed as though my having brought it directly to the office of the Commanding Officer wasn't appreciated. My suspicions were confirmed later that day when a person of higher military rank, with the title of Chief, confronted me about why I would have possibly gone to the office of the Commanding Officer. Despite his apparent consternation, I did attempt to explain that the Navy instruction stated that the application's recipient is Navy Personnel Command via the Commanding Officer. After this confrontation, I felt that perhaps my actions had been misunderstood, and it was with that thought in mind that I went to bed.
Day 2 - Incommunicado
The workload Tuesday morning kept me very well occupied through the first few hours of the day; however, my stomach was uneasy as I still had some very serious doubts about how the apparent boldness of soliciting the Commanding Officer may have been perceived. It was out of this concern that I sent the following email to the Executive Officer:
It remains my goal to make my application for conscientious objector status available as a link from this blog, but that first requires the removal of some publicly unnecessary demographic data. While I hope to report progress tomorrow, if there is none, uploading the application will likely be my plan.
Day 1 - The Executive Suite
When I submitted my application on Monday, it seemed as though my having brought it directly to the office of the Commanding Officer wasn't appreciated. My suspicions were confirmed later that day when a person of higher military rank, with the title of Chief, confronted me about why I would have possibly gone to the office of the Commanding Officer. Despite his apparent consternation, I did attempt to explain that the Navy instruction stated that the application's recipient is Navy Personnel Command via the Commanding Officer. After this confrontation, I felt that perhaps my actions had been misunderstood, and it was with that thought in mind that I went to bed.
Day 2 - Incommunicado
The workload Tuesday morning kept me very well occupied through the first few hours of the day; however, my stomach was uneasy as I still had some very serious doubts about how the apparent boldness of soliciting the Commanding Officer may have been perceived. It was out of this concern that I sent the following email to the Executive Officer:
To: Executive OfficerUnfortunately, despite having the best of intentions my email was clearly not well-received, at least not by Chief, and I have yet to receive any response from the Executive Officer (XO). I sincerely hope that the message was at least read by the XO so that she has the benefit of understanding first-hand the type of person that I am. As regards the first Chief, he talked with his supervisor, another Chief, and then I was instructed to meet with the two of them in the office of the Senior Enlisted Advisor. At their request, I recited for them my entire Chain of Command from myself to the Commanding Officer, after which, the gist of their discourse was that I had not utilized the Chain of Command properly. I was informed that the military, like Microsoft or any other successful organization, does not let people at the bottom simply talk or communicate with those in high-ranking positions. My final instructions were that I was not to email, show up at the office of, or otherwise initiate communication with anyone above them in the Chain of Command. Explicitly mentioned were the Commanding Officer, Executive Officer, and Command Master Chief. After eagerly confirming for them that I had heard everything they said, I was dismissed. On exiting, I asked if they wished for the door to remain open or closed, and I was promptly informed that I need not concern myself with the condition of the Chief's "hatch."
CC: Chief
Subject: Explanation of Action
Executive Officer,
It seemed that there was some confusion regarding my submitting my conscientious objector application directly to you yesterday. I would like to offer an explanation to you and my Chief, in hopes that my action will not be misunderstood as disrespectful or in defiance of the Chain of Command. Over the past months, I have spent numerous hours creating that application, and throughout the process I have been counseled by a lawyer from the Center on Conscience and War (http://www.centeronconscience.org/home. ).shtml
This application is extremely personal and meaningful to me, and therefore, I heeded the lawyer's advice in submitting it directly to the Commanding Officer. The lawyer explained to me how she has counseled numerous other military members through this process, and she confidently advised that turning in the application to the CO was best. Even still, I checked, and as far as I could find, there is no Navy or NHC instruction that directs a Sailor to do otherwise. I recognize that my action was unconventional, but I hope that my motivation and reasoning are now clear.
I readily accept that yourself, or the Commanding Officer, may wish to have the application reviewed by legal or other parties in the Chain of Command. I wish to be of assistance in any way possible. Thank you very much for accepting my application yesterday, and please let me know if I can answer any questions you may have.
Very Respectfully,
HM2 Daniel J. Lakemacher
It remains my goal to make my application for conscientious objector status available as a link from this blog, but that first requires the removal of some publicly unnecessary demographic data. While I hope to report progress tomorrow, if there is none, uploading the application will likely be my plan.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Day 2 - Application Submitted
While this site is yet in the making, my application to be classified as a conscientious objector was submitted a little over 30 hours ago. After a small amount of run-around, I personally handed it over to the Executive Officer of Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes on 04MAY09 at approximately 1300. The waiting has begun.
There have been a few conversations of note since I began this process, but I'll need to delay in relating them here due to the amount of time that has been invested in getting this site operational. It's also my intent to make my application available online for the benefit of friends, family, potential subscribers, and most of all, any struggling military members trying to sort through these issues themselves.
There have been a few conversations of note since I began this process, but I'll need to delay in relating them here due to the amount of time that has been invested in getting this site operational. It's also my intent to make my application available online for the benefit of friends, family, potential subscribers, and most of all, any struggling military members trying to sort through these issues themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
