Day 57 - Double-Down

This week begins my transition to planning for only Monday, Wednesday, and Friday blog posts. I believe this will suffice to keep you informed of any developments while we all continue to await the final decision of NAVPERSCOM (PERS-832) as to whether or not the Navy will continue to retain my unwilling services.

The extra time will also allow for me to organize a revisiting of the issues of "Obedience as Virtue?", "The Nature of Government", and "Consent, what consent?". If you haven't already, I encourage you to read these posts and their attached comments , then join the discussion by commenting and/or emailing me with your own thoughts.

As for today's post and the double-down title, I want to draw attention to the right side-bar link to "Letters of Support" or as it's also known, the "Evidence of My Sincerity" page. Over the weekend, I made available online quite a few more of the letters I have received in support of my CO request. If you haven't written yet but would like to, I have no doubt that your letter would still help since I know members of the Navy are among my readership.

To close this brief post, here's a quote from one of the most decorated Marines to have ever worn the uniform of the United States Military.

"War is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.

It is the only one international in scope.

It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, 1935

Two-time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor

Days 53-56 - IO Report Received

With little fanfare, I received another email today requesting my presence at the Command Legal Office. After doubling back because they were at lunch during my first attempted visit, I was given my copy of the much anticipated report of the Investigating Officer (IO).

In keeping with what seems to be the perfunctory manner with which my freedom is being decided, the report was simply clipped into a standard navy blue folder complete with a sticky note on top saying "Copy for PO Lakemacher".

To acknowledge receipt of this fateful document I signed and dated the following:

"26JUN09 : I received this date a copy of the record (as defined in MILPERSMAN 1900-020) of my conscientious objection hearing. I understand that I have the right to submit a written rebuttal to this record, provided my rebuttal is submitted to the investigating officer within 5 working days after this date. I do/do not desire to submit a rebuttal."

(signed)

HM2 DANIEL J. LAKEMACHER, USN

***-**-####

I circled "do" as it was not immediately apparent what the recommendation of the IO was, and I figured that if I didn't end up submitting anything, those claiming authority would surely continue the process.

To avoid confusion, let me be clear that the IO only makes a recommendation. I understand this to be a very important recommendation as this is the sole person charged with the task of reviewing everyone else's reports about me, in addition to conducting my hearing and interviewing me. That said, the IO's word is not final. However, my rebuttal to the report is the last step of the process in which I have any involvement.

From here, my report will be reviewed by the Commanding Officer and then sent to a place/group called "NAVPERSCOM (PERS-832)" or more understandably Navy Personnel Command. The final decision will somehow be handed down from whatever individual(s) are identified by this title. I'm honestly not sure who this is, or how they decide, but on the linked website in the previous sentence there is a toll-free "customer service" telephone number, so perhaps someone there could clarify who and how my request will ultimately be resolved.

In the meantime, here are some of the highlights of the IO's report:

3. ... Additionally applicant maintains a blog on the website www.warisimmoral.com and printouts from the website were reviewed. (Encl. (10)).

5. Applicant was placed under oath and was allowed to make a presentation of proof that his beliefs (sic). Along with the items made available previously (encls. (1)-(11)), applicant physically presented several novels which demonstrate the amount of study his (sic) has pursued into libertarianism and natural law.

*I find it interesting that the IO choose to use the term novels, despite the fact that 29 of the 31 books I "physically presented" in the hearing were non-fiction. The only two that can rightly be described as novels are Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, both by Ayn Rand. Additionally, the word "libertarianism" was never used in the entirety of the hearing. The word "libertarian" was used once when I noted the title of a book by Murray Rothbard. Admittedly, I understand that the IO would have trouble grouping me in a conventional manner given that I most readily identify myself as being an individual.

5. ... Applicant additionally provided the following other documentary evidence: ("numerous" other sworn and unsworn statements, many of which are available online, but some of which are not yet as I still need to update this section)

6. Applicant presented the in person testimony of his wife, Heather Lakemacher, civilian. ...

7. Applicant then presented the telephonic testimony of Jay Marsh. ...

(ditto for Noah Marsh and HM2 Benito Almaguer III, USN)

11. In a closing argument Applicant indicates that he is emotionally/intellectually troubled by putting on the uniform, and that his own formed beliefs based in libertarianism and natural law are incompatible with military service. ...

*There's that word again, "libertarianism" nothing against it per se, but I never claimed that my beliefs were based in it, although I most certainly did in regard to natural law. And finally what I imagine we've all been waiting for . . .

12. After consideration of the package and the presentation, my recommendation would be to separate the Applicant for the convenience of the government because of his conscientious objection to war.

There you have it. For any of my detractors that have argued that I'm failing the "Navy" by not "fulfilling my contract," the IO thinks I should be separated "for the convenience of the government." Therefore, if I am freed to leave, my doing so will be exactly what the "government" wants. Although I personally have a different perspective from the view of those who call themselves government, this is clearly not at all a matter of my preference but an issue of governmental convenience.

Since I now understand the immoral purpose of their organization, I sincerely hope that any individuals reading this who are a part of NAVPERSCOM will be equally as convinced that, given my insight, it is far more convenient to release me than to continue to force me to labor on their behalf.

So if you're able and/or willing to lift a glass on this Friday night, here's to hoping!

Finally, for all those who wrote or spoke on my behalf, you definitely made a difference as evidenced (no pun intended) by the following:

14. Applicant is consistent in his maintenance that he is a changed person. This assertion was supported by the numerous letters or (sic) support and testimonies of those who have known him.

To the above group, you are true friends, and I have no doubt that you are the individuals with whom I have real relationships. Thank you, and stay tuned for further updates.

Days 51-52 - The End

Sadly I'm not referencing the end of my labors for the Navy, but quite the opposite, the end of my leave. Throughout the day I've had the reality check of knowing that tomorrow I must return to the base and follow orders or face potential imprisonment. Thus ended my weeklong beard and two week's worth of head-hair growth. I look forward to the day when the grooming of my body's hair will be an issue only of my, and by my choosing, my wife's, preferences.

But far more important matters are at stake than the limitations on the fibrous proteins that protrude from my body. It must not be forgotten that militaries exist to wage wars, and wars result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Such a loss of life is staggering, abhorrent, and absolutely unjustified. Worse, is that the above number doesn't include the 5,829 deaths of "coalition" members since the two wars began.

"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

- Albert Einstein

Day 50 - A Light in the Darkness

While on leave, one fantastic experience I had was to personally visit the Center on Conscience & War (CCW) in Washington, D.C. Although I didn't make my request until May, I first decided to apply as a conscientious objector in March 2009. Only days after having made my decision, I called CCW's GI Rights Hotline (1-800-379-2679)

From then until now, the staff at CCW have truly been my greatest resource. They've counseled hundreds of others through this same process and have provided me with expert professional advice, while at the same time always being empathetic to my specific circumstances and how I'm feeling. I truly enjoyed meeting each of the staff, as well as hearing their own stories of how they came to believe that all war is immoral.

I happily assume that the Investigating Officer (and other military members) are still reading my blog, so I'd like to take the chance to better answer one of the questions I was asked during the hearing, especially as it relates to CCW.

IO: Which natural rights advocate follows, if any, follows to your conclusion?

Me: Off the top of my head I could only cite my, what I believe as my own beliefs, I know of no individual or group that advocates explicitly in accordance with every single facet of my beliefs.

IO: I’m not talking every single facet. I’m specifically talking to war itself. Any, are there any natural rights philosophers, advocates that you’ve read, that have come to your conclusion that war in any form is immoral?

Me: Off the top of my head right now, I could not quote any individual or organization that I know of that would, that makes that specific statement. I certainly believe that there do exist such people slash organizations, I can’t think of one off the top of my head that has that as their explicit statement of belief.

Where I got caught up was in trying to think of someone or some group that used the same line of reasoning to reach my same conclusion. Although I think there are persons that even meet that criteria (Stefan Molyneux and Wes Bertrand for starters), I didn't want to try and explain who they were, and I admittedly had only discovered them after coming to my own conclusions, unlike the philosophers that I had referenced in my application as being influential in getting me to that point.

Since this forum allows me a kind of mulligan, I would now more broadly answer the question that as far as people or organizations who have come to my same conclusion (albeit some of them for different reasons), CCW is the best answer I could possibly give. It's an organization that has existed since 1940 for the purpose of "stopping war one soldier at a time."

I find the above slogan in conjunction with the J.F.K. quote that, "War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today," to truly be the most practical. The reality is that the people who instigate and force others to carry out war would never risk fighting in battles themselves.

The reality is that if a critical mass (probably even less than 10%) of military members refused to fight, this would undoubtedly put an immediate end to America's current wars. The reasons that such a small number can have such a significant impact are many. Ultimately, it's not the direct loss of labor that would be the lynchpin, but the ripple effect of doubt and the loss of legitimacy.

As of February 2009, the entire U.S. Armed Forces consists of 1.4 million "active duty personnel." 10% of this would be 140,000 people. Think about what you know of how much time and how many resources have been used in the course of my individual request to be classified as a conscientious objector. Imagine that multiplied by 140,000, or even by 70,000 (5%) or even 14,000 (1%).

Add to this the multiplying effect that would come from the circle in which each individual spread his or her beliefs. The numbers would be in the millions. For example, since May 31st when I began using Google Analytics, warisimmoral.com has had over 500 unique visitors from more than 20 different countries. Surely not everyone will blog, but I know that all will tell their families and their friends and that these people will continue to tell others, and by this, the phrase "stopping war one solider at a time," proves its true power.

Days 46-49 - Heather Speaks Out

I'm continuing to only intermittently post while on leave, but the following was too exciting not to make available immediately.

After finally being able to watch the movie, Sir! No Sir!, that I previously referenced on Day 23, my wife, Heather, unbeknownst to me, wrote the attached letter to the movie's producers. While I had been vaguely aware that she had written someone after we finished the movie, I hadn't given it a second thought until today, when I stumbled on the letter which is posted on the Sir! No Sir! website at the following link.

______________________________

Thank you Adam (and everyone who was part of "Sir! No Sir!"),

My husband, Daniel, and I just finished watching "Sir! No Sir!", and my first impulse was to immediately write to you all. Daniel is in the middle of attempting to obtain a discharge from the Navy as a conscientious objector, and I don't feel like I can adequately express how meaningful it was for me to watch the film and realize that we're not alone.

After having "served" for six months in Guantanamo Bay, Daniel came home as a very subdued and troubled version of his former self. For more than a year, he and I struggled with how to make sense of the things that he had witnessed and experienced there. I include myself in his struggle because of the fact that he received no validation of his questioning from the limited mental health resources that were made available to him upon his return home.

This meant that I was his sounding board, safety net, and psychologist for the past year and a half, hardly roles that I am well equipped to fulfill, especially while trying to maintain my own sanity. Watching him try to make sense of his participation in war has forced me to question so many of the things that I have been taught about war, government, America, and obedience. I've done a complete 180 in my views and was actually the one who suggested that he research conscientious objection because of how distressed he was over his continued involvement with the military.

Despite this, I have often felt very alone in this process. Daniel wasn't part of a unit that was sent to Guantanamo Bay; he was essentially loaned out by himself to another command. This meant that there was no one who had gone through it all with him to talk with about it when he came home. Filing for conscientious objector status has proven to be a rather solitary experience as well. It was months after he made the decision to file before he found another sailor who had successfully obtained a discharge. As a fairly introverted person, I've found it similarly difficult to find people who were sympathetic enough to the situation that I could speak freely with them.

And then we watched "Sir! No Sir!" In one sense, it was horrifying to know what sorts of atrocities were perpetrated by the U.S. government against both innocent foreigners and its own citizens. At the same time, I felt relief wash over me as I realized that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have, at the very least, risked imprisonment rather than fight a war. There was an entire movement that forced the U.S. government, with all its impressive technology, to retreat. I was born almost a decade after the Vietnam War was over, so I have no first-hand knowledge of that time.

As you're well aware, the "history" that I was fed in government schools is significantly different than the events that you presented. It gives me so much hope to know that the American people themselves have ended at least one war before, which means that they can do it again. It's gotten a lot harder because the government has gotten better at managing its image, has created a perception of a "voluntary" military, and has isolated many people from being face to face with the consequences of their participation in war.

Still, seeing the courage of those who were willing to be ridiculed, beaten, court-martialed, and imprisoned for their insistence that they would not participate in immoral actions was incredibly encouraging. It caused me to think that there must be additional ways for me to actively oppose the current wars that the U.S. government is perpetrating. I don't feel quite so alone now, and I feel like I've had the drink of cool water that I needed to keep going in a stressful situation.

Thank you again for speaking out about the experiences of so many others who have been in even more difficult situations and come through with their integrity intact.

Heather Lakemacher

______________________________

I haven't a clue as to how I would be able to cope with all that has, and is continuing to happen, were it not for the incredible empathy, insight, and companionship of Heather. I believe I first told her more than eight years ago that she is the love of my life, the woman of my dreams, and above all, she's my best friend. Amazingly, despite how much we've both changed in the intervening years, these claims are no less true today than when I first made them.

Heather's Letter: Sir! No Sir! Blog

General Website: http://www.sirnosir.com/

Days 42-46 - Leave! And the Tyrant

This post is a little late in coming, partly from celebratory reasons and partly for an unfortunate one. First, I am officially on leave (a temporary respite from my forced labor) for the next 9 days. In addition to a much needed chance to relax, this will hopefully afford me the opportunity to catch up on my backlog of email and unposted responses to blog comments.

But first, back to my original explanation. Over the weekend, I participated in my brother's wedding and the wonderful celebration that followed. It was definitely a joyous occasion, and I very much appreciated it as a welcome change to the bureaucratic ordeal of trying to severe my ties with the military. That was a definite plus.

The unrelated downside began on Monday morning when my wife, Heather, complained of not feeling well. We initially chalked it up to the exhaustion of the previous two days having included a bachelorette party, bridesmaid duties, and childcare, all culminating in an unusually late night of merrymaking on Sunday. It wasn't until her symptoms worsened to mirror those that I had experienced three days earlier that we finally made the connection that she had caught my stomach flu. Blech. Literally.

Thankfully, after 16 hours of intermittently interrupted rest, Heather is feeling much better. That said, apart from the above narrative of why I'm late in blogging, today's post will consist of a parable. Although not claimed to be told by any deity, I still hope that you'll find it insightful.

"A man living alone answers a knock at the door. When he opens it, he sees in the doorway the powerful body, the cruel face, of The Tyrant. The Tyrant asks, "Will you submit?" The man does not reply. He steps aside. The Tyrant enters and establishes himself in the man's house. The man serves him for years. Then The Tyrant becomes sick from food poisoning. He dies. The man wraps the body, opens the door, gets rid of the body, comes back to his house, closes the door behind him, and says firmly, "No."

You can read this summary of the fable told by German playwright Bertolt Brecht in context as part of Howard Zinn's book Passionate Declarations: Essays on War and Justice. The link will take you to the free "google books" page where I found it.

Although many questions jump to mind from this story, I'm curious to learn if you think the man's actions constituted consent to be governed by The Tyrant. After all, the man did step aside and serve The Tyrant for years.

What if the man lived in a cluster of houses where 6 out of the 10 homeowners, not including the man, voted to make The Tyrant their Mayor. This surely would mean that the man consented to be governed by The Tyrant, right? Remember, if the man didn't want to be ruled by The Tyrant he could abandon his personal property and leave. Surely this "freedom" afforded to the man would make it justified, no?

Days 40 & 41 - Isn't it obvious?

In opening the hearing, the "investigating officer" (IO), set out the purpose as follows:

IO: First of all, just start out the purpose of this hearing is to see whether or not your beliefs qualify as conscientious objector as defined by MILPERSMAN 1900 020. Additionally it’s also to test the depth and sincerity of your beliefs.

and,

IO: The standard which I’m operating by today is clear and convincing evidence that you are sincere in your belief and that your belief qualifies as conscientious objector.

The hearing was commenced with these and a few other administrative remarks from the IO. After more than 2.5 hours of hearing detailed explanations from myself and my witnesses as to how significantly I've changed since joining the Navy, and how frustrating it has been for me to try and cope with being a part of an organization that I believe exists for an immoral purpose, I was taken aback by the first question the IO asked of me. Bear in mind, I am already in a non-combatant position, and thus had explicitly filed my CO request as one for the purpose of discharge. Nonetheless, this was the first question I received:

IO: First question is why didn’t you just apply to be a non-combatant status, I mean looking at your service record you only have a year left on your contract.

As I already said, and as the IO already knew, I'm currently in a non-combatant position, therefore, I completely fail to see why this question was asked. Admittedly, there is the possibility that a military member can request CO status and remain in the armed forces as a non-combatant, but this typically involves transfer to the "Hospital Corps" of which I'm already a member. This is even documented in the first section of the first page of my application for CO status.

Secondly, it's a complete misnomer to say that I only have one year left on my "contract." As I've pointed out before, whenever anybody enlists, it's for an eight-year time period. Whatever portion is not designated as Active Duty is spent as a part of the Individual Ready Reserve. At any point during this time, one is eligible to be called back to Active Duty. Don't be fooled. If you, or someone you know says that they are only enlisting for 2, 3, 4, 5 years, they are wrong. The truth is that the military will exercise ownership over you for a minimum of 8 years.

As for myself, the Navy does not have me scheduled to be released until 2013, even though my Active Duty is set to expire in July of 2010. Much can happen in three years, and I don't want to labor a day longer for a group that exists to make war.

Despite all these relevant details, overall, I was shocked by what I felt was the insensitivity of the question. I had brought in my wife, who ended up in tears while explaining the effect that this has all had on me and on us, and in response the first question I'm indifferently asked is why I don't just continue since I only have a year left. How was I supposed to respond to that? By repeating the emotionally charged two and a half hours that had just transpired?

I wasn't sure where to go in answering, and I surely felt affronted by the nature of the question. After a definite pause, I made this attempt:

Me: The reason being . . . I feel like I’ve, I’ve answered to the effect that I mean it’s definitely having an emotional toll on me remaining as a part of the military given my change in belief, and I believe that there’s in some senses, by putting on the uniform every day that I do, there’s the implication of at least tacit consent to what it is that the military does and I no longer wish to give that consent.

This was met with the immediate follow-up:

IO: Do you believe you’re giving tacit consent to the military by being a citizen of the United States?

I didn't see this question coming either, and I was admittedly still somewhat off-kilter from the first question. However, after another pause, I found this one much easier to answer as it was more theoretical, and much less personal.

Me: I do not. In that I never requested citizenship in the United States. That’s something that was, that those who make up the United States government choose to do upon my birth in my specific geographic location. And that is a difference, than the fact that I did at one time very much want to be a part of the military. I no longer do, and so the fact that I explicitly expressed that desire to do that, and took action based on that, is different from my citizenship which I did nothing to request or obtain.

For being extemporaneously given, and somewhat poorly worded, I'd generally stand by my answer. I made a mistake in joining the military, and although I'm admittedly no longer a part of it by choice, I want to do everything in my power to disentangle myself from it. My citizenship on the other hand is not something for which I ever asked; it's merely something with which others have labeled me.

As always, I'm interested to hear what you think. What do you make of these questions? What of my answers? I'll aim to have more on Monday.

Day 39 - Illness and XO's Orders

One unexpected development that I can't directly attribute to my conscientious objector (CO) request is that I've come down with the stomach flu. I admittedly felt sick on Wednesday, but I mistakenly believed that my upset stomach and other symptoms were stress-induced. Unfortunately, this morning I felt worse.

There's no such thing as "calling in sick," when one's time is considered to belong to the government. As a result I obediently followed the procedures in place and reported to "Sick Call." It was there determined that I have the stomach flu, and with the necessary paperwork in place, I was sent home.

Between my illness and the immense amount of time that I have spent preparing for, and now transcribing, Wednesday's hearing, I have had little opportunity to respond to many of the emails and other correspondence I have received during the past week. I hope that my blog will provide at least cursory information to answer some of the questions I have received.

I'm soon returning to bed, but I did want to share one part of the hearing as it relates directly to this blog and website. At the beginning of the hearing, the "investigating officer" (IO) presented me with the case file that was said to contain all the documents pertaining to my CO request. Within this file was a thick stack of what appeared to be printed copies of every single page of this blog.

I was thrilled to see that my blog has apparently been read and followed by at least some portion of those in my Chain of Command. I was immediately curious to learn what effect, if any, this would have on the hearing and my request. My curiosity about the latter effect remains unfulfilled, but as for the hearing, the "investigating officer" (IO) addressed it as the very last point of the hearing. That exchange went as follows:

IO: And some final clarifying matters. I know that there’s some concern that there’s some PII on your website

Me: Oh, okay

IO: And that does need to be removed, any reference to names. If you could please do that as soon as possible.

Me: Oh, I will, most definitely. If it’s okay, with your permission, I can go right home and make that, I can make that change.

IO: I can’t give you permission to go home. I don’t know who you’re reporting to today.

Me: Oh, okay, alright. Well with the permission of my LPO, or my Chief, or whomever, I’ll make that immediate change and report back for duty. So is there anything else that is in any type of violation or

IO: Nope that was the only concern.

Me: All names will be removed.

IO: Right. Perfect.

Upon returning to my office later that day, I discovered that the Executive Officer had also emailed my Division Officer to ensure my compliance with the request. To act in accordance with my orders, a modified version of the email follows so as to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.

From: (Name/Rank)
To: (Name)
Cc: (Names)
Subject: HM2 Lakemacher

(Name/title),
 HM2 Lakemacher has a website where he is posting information regarding his separation and his views about military rules.  As he is pending a legal process that is not made public, the use of the JAG's name on the website is a violation of the Privacy Act.  Please ensure he is not blogging on a government computer and have him remove (name) name from his webpage.

Also ensure he is not doing this on government time or with any government resource.


R, (abbreviated title)

Given the previous reprimands I received for trying to respond to something the Executive Officer told me, I choose to write back to my Division Officer to inform her that all the requested changes have been made.

Although I will hopefully be feeling better soon, I expect that finishing the transcription (I started at the last segment of question and answer) and getting much more rest than usual will consume most of my time in the days to come.

What happens from here is that the IO will create a report summarizing everything that has been gathered in the investigation of my CO request. This report will include a recommendation to the Commanding Officer as to whether or not my request should be granted. I will receive a copy of the report, and I will have "five business days" to respond with any comments or rebuttal.

As for the blog, each day I'll seek to add some further explanation of the hearing, as well as relate any noteworthy interactions. Please continue to write, and I will seek to reply as quickly as possible.

Days 36-38 - Hear ye, hear ye . . .

There's a whole new look to the website, so please let me know if you've noticed anything that's not working properly or that you think could be improved.

Of more interest is that today, of all days, an article I wrote entitled "Behind the Wire: An Insider's Reflections on Gitmo" was published on the homepage of antiwar.com. It may at first seem very similar to the "Reflections on GTMO" post I made previously, but I believe that the published article much more concisely exposes the factors of dehumanization and obedience-based morality that framed my experiences while I was deployed.

As for the most pressing news, my informal hearing was conducted today, and both Heather, who served as a witness, and I are physically and emotionally exhausted. I'm truly grateful for those who testified as witnesses on my behalf, as well as all of you who submitted statements expressing your understanding of what I believe and how I have changed. The fact that you were willing to take action on my behalf as an expression of your support is both extremely meaningful to me on a personal level and also serves as reassurance that I have clearly conveyed the depth and strength of my beliefs.

Overall, I believe that the hearing went well. I honestly think that my sincerity was indisputably evidenced through my own statements, those of the four witnesses, and the many letters I presented. I was also happy to learn that some of my regular readers have been those in my Chain of Command, including the "Investigating Officer" who had printed copies of each of my blogs. To each of you, please take seriously my conscientious objection. It is not merely an idealistic or eccentric belief that has no pertinence to daily life. Instead, the lack of conscientious objectors has enabled war, furthering the needless loss of life for millions of people just like you.

Days 33-35 - An Appeal for Reader Action

At 9:41 this morning, I received an email from the Command Legal Clerk notifying me that a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG) has been assigned to be the Investigating Officer of my conscientious objection. This Lieutenant will be conducting my Informal Hearing at 0900 on Wednesday, June 10, 2009.

The following information was also included in the message:

* You may be represented by an attorney, at your own expensive (sic), who can be present at the hearing and assist you in your presentation.
* Submit additional evidence - statements (sworn/unsworn)
* You may have witnesses (which you will have to ensure they are available and in attendance)
* If you would like a verbatim record of the hearing - you will need to provide it at your own expense.

Once the hearing is complete, the Investigating Officer will submit her report and you will have an opportunity to review it and make a rebuttal.

Whether you agree or disagree with my belief that war is immoral, I ask for your assistance in providing evidence to be submitted at my hearing. The Navy MILPERSMAN 1900-020 instruction states, "The applicant bears the burden of proving their claim of conscientious objection as grounds for separation," and, "They must show, by clear and convincing evidence ... their belief in connection therewith is honest, sincere, and deeply held."

If you are convinced that the latter description is true of my belief, I ask you to write a letter or email that explicitly answers the following three questions:

1. Who are you?
   
2. How do you know me?
3. If you know, how were my beliefs different before I joined the Navy, or even within the first two years of my enlistment?
   
4. Why are you convinced that my specific belief in the immorality of war is "honest, sincere, and deeply held"?

*If you vehemently disagree with the nature of my belief, as I know some readers here do, please don't hesitate to make such a disclaimer in your writing. If anything, doing so only further validates my claim because it shows that even people who disagree with me are nonetheless convinced that I'm sincere.

Even a few sentences or a mere paragraph could prove to be extremely helpful, so please don't feel that a short message isn't worth writing. For examples of what others have written please review "Evidence of My Sincerity." Also, if you like, you're welcome to include other contact information for yourself beyond your email address, but that is by no means necessary.

Please send email to warisimmoral@gmail.com

If you're interested in providing a signed and/or notarized letter or if you're willing and available to be a witness, please email me immediately. Of course, if you have my phone number, don't hesitate to call.

Day 32 - Consent, what consent?

One of my very best friends, Noah Marsh, provided the following comment to my post "The Nature of Government." I very much disagree with what Noah asserts, and after his remarks, I have included my response. I hope this exchange prompts you to try and answer for yourself if there is any morally legitimate basis for one individual or group to impose their will by force on another individual or group.

Without further adieu, Mr. Noah Marsh:

_________________________________________________

While I found the entire post thought provoking I will raise one point particularly to the fore:

In paragraph 24 (the final one before the Addendum)you say, "The sad reality is that nobody alive in 'America' today has been presented the option to consent to be governed by those who currently do so anyway."

I disagree.

Every free person alive in "America" today is presented with the option to consent to be governed by those who do so anyway. There are two ways in which you actively provide consent to the government of America to govern you.

First, any person freely living in America chooses to be a denizen and a citizen of America. The free person living in America can choose to go to another country to live or to claim citizenship if he or she chooses. I know that this is not always possible due to political relationships between countries, visa regulations, etc. but I believe many people effectively excercised this "natural right" (?) in protest to the draft during the Vietnam War when they fled to Canada. By remaining in America and retaining your citizenship you consent to be governed according to their laws.

Second, a person living in obedience to the laws of the government acknowledges and provides consent for those laws to govern that person. Accepting and abiding by the laws acknowledges the authority of those laws and consists of consent. During the civil rights movement one of the great catalysts for change in the laws was the peoples' refusal to abide by those laws which they did not consent to govern them. To continue living according to the objectionable law is to continue consenting to its legitimacy.

Everyday, every person who freely lives in America and follows the laws provides his or her consent to be governed by the American government. For those who wish to revoke their consent for a certain law(s), any continuing abiding by that (those) law(s) consists of their active and conscious consent.

_________________________________________________

I don’t believe that Noah provides evidence to validate either of his stated reasons that “every free person” (?) in America “is presented with the option to consent to be governed.”

First, Noah contradicts his own claim that any “free person living in America can choose to go to another country,” when his next sentence says, “I know that this is not always possible due to political relationships between countries, visa regulation, etc.” If it’s “not always possible” because of governmental interference, then people cannot, by his own admission, “choose to go to another country.” This alone invalidates his first argument, but the example he gives is still worth analyzing for another reason.

Noah cites the successful flight of persons to Canada who otherwise would have been enslaved to the American military, as an example of how people are free to leave the self-claimed jurisdiction of those who call themselves the United States government. Highlighting the fact that many persons did succeed in leaving during that time does nothing to address what happened to the tens of thousands of those that did not leave.

Additionally, Noah didn’t comment about the unjust threat of either imprisonment or forced labor that was the reason why these people fled. For one individual or group to tell another individual or group that the first must fight in a war or be imprisoned, doesn’t equate to giving them a choice. The latter is an example of coercion, not freedom.

Secondly, Noah said in regard to government that, “Accepting and abiding by the laws acknowledges the authority of those laws and consists of consent.” To accept a law is entirely different from abiding by it. A quick click of the mouse reveals the Microsoft Word synonyms for the word “accept” as: “believe, agree to, acknowledge, allow,” and most importantly the word “consent” is given as a synonym for accept. With this understanding of terms, I could not rightly disagree with Noah that yes, if someone does accept and abide by certain laws, she or he does obviously acknowledge the authority of those laws and that would consist of consent.

However, I believe that there is a vast difference between abiding by a law and consenting, accepting, or acknowledging the authority of that law. I would be extremely surprised to find anyone outside the KKK who asserted that the millions of darker-skinned persons that were deemed slaves by the laws of the United States, accepted, consented, and acknowledged the authority of these laws, even though they may have “abided” by those same laws in order to avoid even worse mistreatment. To again apply the draft-dodgers example, were those slaves that didn't run away free to leave the country as evidenced by the ability of other slaves to have successfully escaped? Also, did the these peoples obedience to the laws enslaving them equate to their consent to be enslaved?

The reality is that I “abide” by the unjust laws of those who call themselves government, despite my lack of consent, acceptance, or acknowledgment of their authority, because I wish to avoid the worse injustices that would undoubtedly be perpetrated against me if I did not.

If you think that I’m merely playing a game of semantics to generate a non-existent difference, ask yourself if you can honestly say that you’ve never “abided” by a law to which you didn’t agree. Applying this same rationale to the broader issue of the overall “consent of the governed,” is to recognize that people may follow the laws of those who would do them harm if they didn’t. However, such prudential action shouldn’t be misconstrued as consent.

I’ll conclude with what Noah wisely recognized in a previous comment as the imperfect, but useful, tool of an analogy. Imagine that a person with a gun approaches you and demands 50% of whatever money you have or you will be imprisoned. At this point, is it fair to say that you have the choice between paying the money and going to prison? Is it relevant to say that you are “free” to try and run away, and therefore, by not fleeing, you consent to whatever consequences come next? In both cases I answer with a resounding "No!"

The same resounding “No!” is applicable in real-life situations involving those individuals who call themselves government. Noah, you and I were born within the confines of what is commonly called the United States; we didn't choose to be alive within this specific geographic area, nor did we choose or consent to have others classify us as citizens. Both happened as an immediate result of our being born.

During high school when we each first got jobs, certain groups of people began taking a percentage of our income away from us. I believe you agree that the ends do not justify the means, thus making it irrelevant why this was done. What is crucial is that which was rightfully ours was taken from us. At this point, the key difference between us and the hypothetical person being mugged was that we had already had our property (income) extorted, and therefore, unlike the hypothetical person, we didn’t have the opportunity to flee prior to becoming a victim of theft.

The fact that, to my knowledge we both continue to pay income taxes, and neither of us has fled the country, does not signify that we have implicitly or explicitly consented to “be governed.” I believe that this point is incontestable, in that even if you have somehow offered your consent, I know that I have not.

Day 31 - Listen Closely

I'm excited to report that the message of warisimmoral.com is continuing to spread in new ways, most recently via the audible medium of the Complete Liberty Podcast.

Wes Bertrand, the author of the books Complete Liberty and the Psychology of Liberty, is the host and describes the podcast as a "show that promotes total respect for self-ownership, property rights, and personal choice--amidst the authoritarian/obedience-oriented political and psychological memes in American culture (and elsewhere)."

In this week's episode, linked below, Wes spends the majority of the show sharing excerpts from my application. If you've been too busy to read my admittedly lengthy discourse on why I believe that war is immoral and how I came to hold this belief, you can now gain this understanding on-the-go by listening to the episode.

To be upfront, Wes doesn't begin talking about Guantanamo Bay until about 6 minutes into the show, and then after another 3 minutes or so he introduces my conscientious objection and continues on this topic for another 25 minutes. Overall, I highly recommend the entirety of the show as both insightful and entertaining, so please understand that I offer these time-specific designations merely as a convenience for those intending only to listen and catch-up on that which they haven't had the time to read.

Many thanks to Wes for his high quality and accurate presentation of my beliefs, and as always, please let me know any thoughts or ideas that you have in response to anything I've presented or referenced. I realize I still have some issues outstanding that I said I would address, but after yesterday's post, I need to take a break from more rigorous writing.

Complete Liberty Podcast - Episode 69 is available for download in two ways.

1. Free from the iTunes Store

2. By right-clicking and saving the following link directly as an mp3

Day 30 - The Nature of Government

As I had hoped, my reference to Roger Young’s article “The Blinding Fog of War” did elicit reader feedback. However, I’m now convinced that before I can address the platitude that “you only get to say what you do because someone else served and died so you could,” I must first establish precisely what I believe the nature of government to be.

Below I have quoted an email I received in response to Mr. Young’s article. It was this excerpt that specifically sparked the reply that follows it. My hope is that by presenting this in the same conversational format in which it was originally written, it will be more enjoyable and easy to read. At the same time I aim to provide a clear and thorough overview of what I understand to be the nature of government.

"First, I take issue with the label of "subject". I am not a voiceless, powerless serf but an armed (well, not yet, but soon) citizen who, with his fellow citizens, chooses people to represent him in government."

I definitely resonate with your sentiment, but I also believe that this is the exact idea that those in government wish to perpetuate. However, despite having felt a similar and wholehearted zeal for this perspective in times past, I now believe that these are not the true dynamics of the situation. I’m glad that you take issue with the label of “subject,” but I think your focus on the word distracts you from realizing that you’re being treated as a subject, even if you’re more often described as a citizen.

First you address the fact (or soon to be fact) that you are armed. I believe that this is (or will be) absolutely true, albeit practically irrelevant. Although I believe that the framers of the Constitution made an obvious and honest attempt to check the power of government via the 2nd Amendment, it little matters for multiple reasons. I imagine that you will agree that what is said in the Constitution does not now, and has not historically, restricted the actions of those called government. I believe that the possible examples of this are so numerous that even entire organizations of liberty-minded individuals such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation are unable to fully exhaust the list of abuses.

Of more practical importance is the reality that even if you’re armed with a handgun, shotgun, or at best a semi-automatic rifle, your ability to either defend yourself or forcefully attempt to stop those in government from doing what they choose is effectively non-existent in comparison with the physical force that government is viewed as being able to legitimately level against you. Again, examples abound of how even the collective physical force exercised by modern day militias or even other state militaries are inconsequential compared with the deadly weaponry utilized by those who are collectively known as the government of the United States.

What consequence does your ownership of a firearm have on the dealings of the State? The State commands millions of individuals who daily walk around with such weapons at their waist. If anything, your having a gun poses a greater risk to your safety than if you didn’t. This is because those in power would find it easier to justify your death if you ever choose to use your gun in defense of your freedoms, as compared to the slightly more complicated task that would be involved in legitimizing your death if you were unarmed. If you think I’m exaggerating, tell me what you honestly think would happen if you didn’t pay your federal income tax, and then attempted to use your firearm to defend your freedom when men with guns came to try and physically apprehend you, as they eventually and undoubtedly would.

Ironically, while I’m here highlighting the absolute power of life and death over the entire world that is at the immediate disposal of those who are the American government (i.e. nuclear weapons), I actually think that their most effective means of subjecting the populace is the perception of legitimacy that you so candidly exemplified in your opening statement.

Now we get into the true nature of our subjugation to those who label themselves as government. This relationship, if that is even an appropriate use of the word, can best be characterized as that of master and slave. While this choice of words may strike you as extremely inflammatory I ask that you stick with me because I have a very logical and rational explanation for this assertion.

Before I say more, I wish to make absolutely clear that I’m neither implying nor stating that those people who currently live within the purported jurisdiction of the United States are more or less restricted in exercising their natural (or as you see them, God-given) rights. However, having fewer restrictions on one’s freedom than are imposed on others doesn’t mean that there is no cause for objection to the injustices of one’s own reality.

Simply put, the master-slave relationship, despite always being unjust, is not uniform in the degree of its abuses. This can easily be seen from America’s own brief history. Some masters, arguably a few of the “Founding Fathers,” are remembered as comparatively benign in exercising their claims to legitimately own other human beings, whereas the torturous artifacts that remain from other slaveholders speak to an entirely different level of inhumanity. That there are drastically different extents to which one can act immorally doesn’t make the less immoral act justified.

Returning to the present, I assert that you and I are both mere slaves to those who call themselves government. Even in this situation, the yoke is not equal, as I am less free to act without having my natural (or God-given) rights violated than you are. My answer to the likely retort that I am voluntarily more limited in my freedom, since I chose to be a member of the military, became an invalid argument the day I no longer wished to remain employed by the Navy but was still forced to labor under threat of imprisonment. Note that in this instance the common use of language accurately signifies that my action was done in the past tense. I “chose” to be in the military, that action is done; I no longer willingly choose to be in the military.

These specific delineations aside, I believe we’re both slaves according to the top definition result given by Google as “the state of being under the control of another person.” The extent of this control is not what is at issue in determining slavery. Whether or not we’re under the most lenient master-slave relationship could be rightfully debated, however, the fact that we are slaves, is to me, quite clear. If you think we’re not slaves by this or other similar definitions of the term, I would be eager to hear why you don’t think so.

No master can ever exercise total dominion over a slave; therefore, there exist only differing constraints that define such relationships. What follows is only a small selection of the many ways in which the people calling themselves government have made me a slave by controlling some of the most significant portions of my life through the threat of physical force.

I don’t deny that others have been treated worse and controlled to a greater degree; however, that truth does not make either of our present situations less restrictive. I have intentionally limited my examples to that which would be true even if I weren’t labeled an “Active Duty Sailor.” If you’re not controlled in these ways as well, I’m curious to hear how you have avoided such mistreatment.

As regards the individuals who call themselves government:

1. They control what substances I ingest into my body through drug regulation – legal and illegal, and food restrictions like those restricting access to raw milk

2. They control how much of my income I get to keep as per income tax laws

3. They control what property I own, how I can use it, and how much of it I can keep as evidenced by eminent domain, grass-cutting laws, property taxes, gun laws, automobile regulation, firecracker laws, aluminum bat laws and the regulation of almost any other piece of property imaginable

4. They control if and how I can labor, by requiring licenses as absurd as those regulating if I can cut someone else’s hair

5. They control whether or not I can cross the geographic boundaries in which they claim jurisdiction - thus if I don’t like it here, it’s a fallacy to say that I can freely leave and go elsewhere due to the exit tax among other reasons

Bear in mind that if I ever resist their control by exercising my own volition against their wishes, they will violate my natural (or God-given) rights by initiating physical force against me even if I have done nothing to infringe upon their natural (or God-given) rights or the natural (or God-given) rights of others. I understand that we disagree about whether humans are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” or if they possess them naturally, but I ask you, how could a just God that views humans as equal to each other ever desire for them to relate to each other in any form of a master-slave relationship?

I recognize that this response doesn’t address many of the other statements you made in your email, but I felt that it was more important to first establish what I believe is the true nature of any group (government or not) that uses force to impose its will on anyone else without the continuous consent of every individual involved. Perhaps you would consent to live under the current U.S. government, or maybe you would only acquiesce to a government that continuously abides by the Constitution. I hope you agree that whatever your preference, it wouldn’t make it right to force others to do the same.

The sad reality is that nobody alive in “America” today has been presented the option to consent to be governed by those who currently do so anyway. As I understand you to be a fan of John Locke, I hope that when presented in this manner, you now see that there does not exist the “consent of the governed” in America today, and therefore, at the very least, those claiming to be the United States government are illegitimate and should rightfully be ignored.

*ADDENDUM (8:36 PM): My wife, Heather Lakemacher, made the following statement in regard to what she viewed as my possibly errant attribution to John Locke of an alternative concept of the consent of the governed.

"I think that Locke's idea of the consent of the governed still has collectivist roots. He understands it to be the consent of the majority. He doesn't carry his own ideas about the origin of property to their logical conclusion, that is, that only continuous individual consent could justify government."

Although it may be true that Locke conceptualized the consent of the governed only to be the consent of a majority, this concept provides no more legitimacy to the idea that any one individual or group of individuals can be justified in ruling anyone else. Therefore, if this was Locke's view, it inherently contradicts itself.

Day 29 - Did anyone die for my right to blog?

I had “duty” today, which essentially amounts to being required to stay on base for an extra four hours beyond my regular schedule. Unfortunately, despite the extra hours there remains a lack of news to report on the progress of my request.

In an attempt to discover more information, I succeeded in talking to the Command’s legal representative. My aim was to see if she had for me the copies of the reports from the Psychologist and Chaplain for which I had asked. However, our seemingly stilted conversation resulted only in her statement that the legal office does not yet have both of these documents and she is therefore unable to provide them to me. She advised me that, of course, she would provide these when they are available.

In sum, no “Investigating Officer” has been assigned, and there is no further progress to report.

Looking forward, I intend to offer a more thoughtful post tomorrow as I don’t expect to be hindered by an additional four hours under the direct governance of the Navy. Perhaps I’ll express my thoughts on the adage that is commonly applied to those who speak out against war or the military: “Remember, you only get to say what you do because someone else served and died so you could”.

If you have thoughts on this topic in advance I’m certainly interested to hear them. You’re welcome to either email or post a comment. In a brief online chat while writing this, an individual advocated that free speech is “a God-given right, yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that others have died to prevent others from infringing upon that right.”

An alternative perspective is found in a very short article entitled "The Blinding Fog of War" in which Roger Young asserts that those in the military "did not die for your freedom--they died to maintain the power of the US government over its subjects and to project its power towards other governments that don’t follow its hegemonic direction."

What do you think? I'd appreciate hearing from you, as what you say may very well affect my perspective and writing in tomorrow's post.