For the Convenience of the Government

"Guantanamo Guard Reunited with Ex-Inmate"

2010-01-13T12:05:00.050-06:00

After a long blogging hiatus, I again feel compelled to evaluate and share about my own participation in the prison camps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Although I regularly think about my experiences there, I was prompted to write this after reading a BBC article about how a former U.S. soldier, Brandon Neely, sought to find and personally try to make amends with one of the prisoners he guarded while deployed to Cuba.

I, too, have thought about attempting to directly apologize to the men I helped confine in Gitmo, but when I was there, those caged individuals were so effectively dehumanized to me that I didn't know them by name, only by number. Additionally, in my fear-induced state of compliance, I never wanted to risk engaging in the highly prohibited practice of idly chatting with the "enemy." Undoubtedly, these military policies exist in hopes of preventing anyone from developing the type of humane feelings and pangs of conscience that clearly affected both myself and Mr. Neely.

Unlike him, I don't know if I'll ever again meet any of those I so unquestioningly and unjustifiably helped to imprison. However, I do want to make it widely known that I offer no defense for my actions. This is not meant to imply that such an acknowledgment in any way mitigates my guilt, but considering the ongoing nature of these abuses, I am convinced that it is both right and important that I speak out against them.

To this end, let me be clear that I am guilty of having helped to confine men to cages without possessing any form of evidence that would justify their incarceration. Worse, I did not object to seeing some of those men strapped into chairs and force-fed through tubes inserted from their noses into their stomachs. Bear in mind that such "feedings" were not administered multiple times a day as a result of ongoing medical problems, but because many men had lost their will to live and had therefore stopped eating.

This form of extreme apathy toward continuing one's life is sadly understandable when a human being is effectively deprived of almost all liberty. In this context, forced feedings cannot be seen as a compassionate lifesaving act, but as a most extreme attempt at total domination of another human being. How can it be anything other than torture to keep someone alive against their will while indefinitely isolating them in a barren cage?

I witnessed these most heinous acts, and at the time, I neither did, nor said, anything. I did not object because I believed these means could be justified by the end result of obtaining information or preventing the prisoners from rallying support through martyrdom. I was wrong in my actions, and I was wrong in my reasoning.

Other than those still held captive, I am clueless as to the whereabouts of any of the men who were imprisoned during my time at Gitmo. As a current resident of Illinois, I've considered trying to visit any captives that are transferred to this area, but I doubt that would be allowed.

In light of the present circumstances, I see no other possibility for me to personally make amends. However, this does not mean that progress in the overall situation cannot be made. By publicly admitting his guilt to those he wronged, Brandon Neely has both raised awareness about this issue and provided an example to millions of what can be done. Among these masses, he has inspired me, and perhaps others, to more articulately and publicly admit our own culpability for the wrongs we committed at Guantanamo.

Some might argue that testimonies like mine or Mr. Neely's have little affect on the politics that supposedly govern our world. However, a year ago many people thought Barack Obama offered hope and change for how Americans would act and be perceived in the larger world. Nevertheless, relatively little is different today despite all the bureaucratic chatter and even a Nobel Peace Prize. In contrast, I think it is abundantly clear that the virtuous actions of Brandon Neely provide a far better way forward than the rhetoric of "policy change" from any politician. After all, only stopping the commission of a particular evil is not sufficient to foster healing; for this to happen, there must also be an unequivocal admission of guilt and acceptance of personal responsibility for one's past actions.

The URL for the BBC story is as follows:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8452937.stm

Most Comprehensive Interview to Date

2009-11-11T23:13:00.008-06:00

I was interviewed during all three hours of the PeterMac Show this past Saturday night (11/07). With this extended time format I had the opportunity to go into greater detail about my time in GTMO, the process of conscientious objection, and my change from being a pro-war Statist to an anti-war anarchist.
*The linked mp3 files exclude commercials.

Daniel Lakemacher - 11/07/2009: Hr. 1

Saturday, 07 November 2009 00:00

Daniel Lakemacher of WarIsImmoral.com. Daniel filed a request to be discharged from the United States Navy as a conscientious objector (CO). After 131 more days of being forced to work under the threat of imprisonment, he was finally freed from his involuntary servitude on September 11, 2009.

Download | Right Click and select "Save File As" or "Save Target As" to download this file.

Daniel Lakemacher - 11/07/2009: Hr. 2

Saturday, 07 November 2009 00:00

Download | Right Click and select "Save File As" or "Save Target As" to download this file.

Daniel Lakemacher - 11/07/2009: Hr. 3

Saturday, 07 November 2009 00:00

Download | Right Click and select "Save File As" or "Save Target As" to download this file.

From Thought to Action

2009-10-13T14:15:00.032-05:00

In my continued brainstorming about how I can best work toward ending war, I decided it would be helpful to gain some hands-on experience with others who are trying to achieve that same goal. To this end, I spent last week volunteering at the Center on Conscience & War (CCW) in Washington, D.C.

Since 1940, CCW has been advocating for the rights of conscientious objectors as well as providing them with invaluable advice and supportive counseling. Although it was originally formed by an association of religious groups and is still considered a "faith based organization," CCW is adamant about its support of all conscientious objectors to war. I quickly discovered that my own experience of their support for my non-religious conscientious objection is but one case among many.

A second example of their service to non-religious objectors turned out to be one of the biggest highlights of my week. One of the days when I was volunteering, I met a former Naval Officer who had been discharged just one week prior to my arrival at CCW, and like myself, this individual wanted to do some volunteer work as well. This opportunity was extremely meaningful for me as the two of us were both discharged recently and could so readily relate to each other's experiences. I felt an almost immediate and strong level of kinship, and in addition to participating in some of CCW's training together, we also spent time swapping stories and congratulating each other over lunch.

We resonated over the sense of isolation that we each felt throughout the process. Not that we didn't have the support and encouragement of both significant people in our lives and from CCW, but more so the feeling that even our best friend or an experienced counselor could not offer the unspoken understanding of someone who was personally facing the obstacles of having a conscientious objection as a member of the military. The reality is that it's definitely not hard to feel out of place in an organization of hundreds of thousands of people, especially when it seems that you are the only one to have a moral resignation about participating in war.

Echoing each other's sentiments, we both agreed that it would have been great to be connected with someone else who was going through the process of conscientious objection at the same time as we were. Amidst the myriad military support organizations and peace activist groups, neither of us is aware of anything geared specifically at connecting conscientious objectors to each other. However, given all my recent thinking about how I can advance liberty and stop war, I immediately jumped to the possibility of starting such a network myself.

For the moment, my ideas have only been briefly discussed, but it's definitely an exciting option and a project that would have particular meaning for me. Your feedback is appreciated, and to help evidence the very real world of military conscientious objection, included below is a slideshow from CCW's website. The photos are all of recent conscientious objectors, and they are mostly arranged in a before (uniformed) and after (civilian) format, with yours truly included near the end.

*As a final note, CCW isn't limited to helping military personnel with conscientious objection. They also deal with issues of AWOL/UA, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Hardship discharge, Pregnancy/Parenthood discharge, and many other concerns of military members and their families. If you, or someone you know, would be in need of their help either call them directly at 1-800-379-2679 or call the GI Rights Hotline of which they are a member organization.

My blogging schedule has gotten a little off, but stay tuned as next week I'm planning on meeting members of Free Keene!

War is an Effect of Government

2009-10-04T15:36:00.012-05:00

Knowing that my readership spans a continuum of people, from those who acknowledge the inherent violence of government to those who do not, I strive to consistently create or present meaningful content for the entirety of this audience. My goal in doing so remains the same: to end the systematic and legitimized initiation of violence in our world (of which war is the most obvious).

The question of what means are most effective to this end has been weighing heavily on my mind in the weeks since my discharge. Despite my confidence on a few crucial points, I intend to be continually reevaluating this question as I learn more. If you have ideas, resources, or personal experiences that you think are insightful, please share them publicly via the comment feature or privately with me by email.

Of one thing I am sure, and this is why I have embedded the following video. As regards the violent initiation of force or threats thereof, I firmly believe in the narrator's conclusion, "When we truly see it, and feel it, and speak it clearly, it will end." This process began for me as I read Atlas Shrugged. My hope is that this film will similarly sharpen your own perception of reality as well as your desire to convey the truth to others.

Conformity & Compliance vs. Conscience & Consistency

2009-09-28T09:00:00.011-05:00

As a followup to my interview on Antiwar Radio, I was contacted by the host of another podcast, Brett Veinotte. Brett expressed a desire to interview me specifically about the military's culture of obedience. Initially, I learned about Brett when he did an education series on the Complete Liberty Podcast, and then, about a month ago, Brett started his own show, School Sucks. In just this short time, his show has quickly become one of the most popular education podcasts available on the web, with downloads from around the world.

Outside of authoritarian family dynamics, the governmental indoctrination system commonly referred to as "Public School" is undoubtedly the single greatest propaganda tool for manipulating the minds of young people toward a willingness to murder and/or die in the military. Were it not for the nearly constant messages that it's the highest virtue to be killed while trying to kill others (in uniform of course) and that without waging war we'd all be saying "Heil Hitler" or speaking Japanese, there would undoubtedly be few people so willing to risk their lives on command. Today the message has changed to the threats of wearing turbans and reading the Koran, but the principles of fear and a tribal mentality remain the same. As a result, Brett's work in highlighting the harmful effect of so-called public education is an invaluable part of progressing from a society that condones war to one that condemns it.

What follows is some background information about Brett as seen on his website edu-lu-tion.com:

In my 10+ years of teaching, "school sucks" is perhaps the most common phrase I've heard students use to describe their feelings about public education. But this seemingly bitter and reductive slogan is actually quite clever. When taken literally, "school sucks" is perhaps the most accurate and astute synopsis of the system I've ever heard. Here's why...

The twelve-year process of an American public education has a dramatic effect on the mind of a child. When we first enter school at age six, many of our best personal attributes are already in place. We are curious, innovative, unique, creative and hopeful in ways that we will rarely be able to replicate throughout the rest of our lives. But over time, school sucks those essential attributes out of too many of us...and replaces them with predictability, obedience and apathy.

Brett includes a "Critical Thinking Question" as part of each episode, and for this show the question is, "How could disobedience to authority save millions of lives?" Whether you already know the answer or not, I'm confident that you'll find the content of the show to be thought-provoking and insightful.

The show is available for listening/download via podOmatic by clicking here,

You can use the following link to find School Sucks in the iTunes Store.

______________________

Additional Resources:

Daniel Lakemacher on Antiwar Radio

http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/09/16/daniel-lakemacher/

The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram

http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

An Exploration of Self-Responsibility and Its Effects on Obedience by Wes Bertrand

http://www.logicallearning.net/obedience.html

Radio Interview

2009-09-20T23:59:00.002-05:00

On Tuesday I had the privilege of being interviewed by Scott Horton on KAOS 95.9 FM in Austin, Texas. Scott is the host of Antiwar Radio, and in addition to his live show, he publishes his interviews as podcasts. The bulk of Scott's questions were related to my time in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but I also had the opportunity to provide an overview of how to be discharged as a conscientious objector. I'm excited about the increased publicity this has brought to my own site, especially since many in the anti-war movement are unaware of the powerful impact that can be made by encouraging an active duty member to file as a conscientious objector.

Included below are links to the interview, as well as some information from the "About" page of antiwar.com. Antiwar.com is a unique source for detailed information that is hard to find through any of the major media outlets. Particularly in light of the recent U.S. military attack in Somalia, I encourage you to utilize this site as a means to discover critical information and alternate perspectives on the immoral actions perpetrated under the guise of United States foreign policy.

MP3 Download (25:03)

iTunes Store Interview Link

This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, "greens," and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. Our initial project was to fight against intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency. We applied the same principles to Clinton's campaigns in Haiti and Kosovo and bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne's concept that "War is the health of the State." With every war, America has made a "great leap" into statism, and as Bourne emphasized, "it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution [the State]." At its core, that nature includes an ever increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power.

. . .

Our dedication to libertarian principles, inspired in large part by the works and example of the late Murray N. Rothbard, is reflected on this site. While openly acknowledging that we have an agenda, the editors take seriously our purely journalistic mission, which is to get past the media filters and reveal the truth about America's foreign policy. Citing a wide variety of sources without fear or favor, and presenting our own views in the regular columns of various contributors, we clearly differentiate between fact and opinion, and let our readers know which is which.

Keep reading . . .

Day 131 - The End of My Military Enslavement

2009-09-11T09:57:00.001-05:00

To confirm the absolutely arbitrary and tyrannical nature of my former involuntary servitude to the Navy, I was "discharged" this morning at 9:57 AM simply by signing a sheet of paper and having someone else sign it as well. Prior to these ink marks having been made on that paper, others would have deemed themselves justified in throwing me in a cage if I didn't work for them. However, with this magic document the individuals calling themselves the "Navy" suddenly lost the so-called "right" to completely control my productive capacity. The reality is that these people never had, nor could they ever have, the right to own me or anyone else.

The fact that I'm no longer threatened with imprisonment if I don't work for them does nothing to justify the previous 1,516 days during which that was an ever-present reality. The truth is that despite having only filed my written request to be classified as a conscientious objector 131 days ago, I could not have freely left any day prior to today.

While I'm thrilled that the injustice of my forced labor for the Navy has ended, this is not a victory of right over wrong, nor is it proof that, however slowly, "the system does work."

Before praising the Navy for having done the right thing, think of it this way: if a slave-owner suddenly decided to release one of his slaves would you speak well of him even if he never publicly admitted that he was horribly wrong for having enslaved someone in the first place? What if the slave owner did nothing to try and make restitution to the individual he had enslaved? Finally, and perhaps worst of all, would you have kind words for the "Master" if after releasing one slave he continued to threaten hundreds of thousands of other slaves if they quit working?

Sadly, this is not merely an analogy, but it is the reality of what has happened with myself and the Navy. In ending their threat of imprisonment today, those comprising the Navy have never admitted the immorality of having forced me to labor for them for the previous 1,516 days that I did. Additionally, they have not in any way sought to make restitution for this grave injustice. Finally, and one of the major reasons this blog will continue, they continue to threaten hundreds of thousands of other people with imprisonment should they leave their jobs without the "papers" I was given today.

Ultimately, war is immoral, and part of this immorality is the manner in which people are forced to risk their lives, limbs, and property to either fight in it or fund it. Were it not for the perceived legitimacy of military enslavement (generally read "enlistments"), the likelihood and destructive power of war would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated. Therefore, I will continue to apply my talent and effort toward promoting the truth of military slavery and the overall immorality of war. I do this not as a man embittered by his personal experience, but rather as an individual who is inspired by the possibility of creating a voluntary society.

Days 124-129 - I've Seen It in Writing

2009-09-09T17:19:00.005-05:00

I've now seen the "orders" authorizing my discharge, and I've been told that Friday will be the day when I'm finally released.

This blog and my corresponding website http://warisimmoral.com will continue, as I hope that it will serve as an inspiration and catalyst for others working for the military ("uniformed" or civilian) to abandon their support of the immoral institution known as the United States Department of Defense. What follows is an introduction and link to an article exposing the false reasoning used to rationalize why "coalition forces" are justified in occupying Afghanistan.

________________________

The Myth of Afghan Terrorism

In his speech about Afghanistan, given at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London on 4 September 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown argued that this is a war to protect people across the West from terrorism.

It is ‘not just a mission to protect the British people from the threat of terrorism but an international mission involving over 40 countries’, he said, ‘because we all face the same threat. We’ve all seen the reality of this threat: in Bali, Madrid, Mumbai, and of course on the streets of London four years ago.’ (1)

Raising the spectre of recent terrorist attacks to justify the war in Afghanistan is highly disingenuous - because Afghan terrorism is a myth. No Afghan citizens have been involved in any of the terror attacks mentioned by Brown. And even where non-Afghans have allegedly received funding or training from inside Afghanistan in order to carry out terrorist attacks, their drive and motivation has come from elsewhere.

A brief overview of recent attacks suggests that, contrary to what Brown says, the problem of contemporary terrorism will not be resolved by occupying Afghanistan.

Continue reading as Patrick Hayes details the lack of Afghan involvement in each of the referenced terrorist incidents @ http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7350/

123 Days Later . . . A Verbal Answer Is Given

2009-09-03T17:04:00.007-05:00

This afternoon a man identifying himself as my "SEA" (Senior Enlisted Advisor) informed me that I will be discharged from the military within about one week. This individual was not forthcoming with details, but apparently on an as yet unknown day next week, I will no longer be subject to imprisonment should I stop working for the organization known as the United States Navy. I'm unsure what exactly will transpire during my remaining days of involuntary servitude, but I have been told that I will undergo a final physical examination in addition to being asked to sign a lot of paperwork.

For any military members reading this, I hope you're encouraged to file your own request to be discharged as a conscientious objector. The truth is that war is immoral, and it's abhorrent that you're threatened with imprisonment if you stop working in support of it on anything but the military's terms.

Again, here's a link to the organization that has been my biggest asset in seeking discharge:

Center on Conscience & War: http://centeronconscience.org/home.shtml

*They assist military members with many issues beyond conscientious objection, and their toll-free confidential phone number is 1-800-379-2679.

Days 113-119 - Adding Insult to Injury

2009-08-30T23:59:00.002-05:00

This week I received my third letter from the "Under Secretary of Defense" via the United States Postal Service. At current postage rates that amounts to $1.32 that has been stolen from someone in taxes to have these letters sent to me. This dollar figure doesn't include the more significant costs that were extorted from other "taxpayers" in order to create the letter and enact the program the letter describes. Bear in mind, I have also received multiple emails regarding the same issue that is addressed in this correspondence.

The waste of resources involved in forwarding such junk-mail is not insignificant, but on a personal level, the real travesty is the slap in the face of what is being asked of me. The letter states:

Dear Petty Officer Lakemacher,

You have been selected to participate in the August 2009 Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members ... It will ask for your opinions on a variety of policies and programs that will improve the workplace and family life for all military members. While your participation is desired, it is entirely voluntary.

I urge you to share your perspective on these important issues. This is your chance to influence the formulation of military personnel policies. These surveys are Official Business and can be completed at your duty station, using government equipment ...

The rest of the legal size card stock page goes on to detail information about accessing the survey online as well as enclosing a perforated tear-out card "designed to fit in your wallet."

Apparently I've been wrong all along about those in the military not caring about me. The reality is that they care so much that despite my having written thousands of words condemning their actions and repeatedly asking to be released from their pool of forced labor, they are giving me the "chance to influence the formulation of military personnel policies."

Oh, but just when I thought they were interested in me as an individual, the truth comes back through the following statements that are found toward the end of the letters:

I assure you that your responses will be kept confidential. All data will be reported in the aggregate and no individual data will be reported.

Whew, for a second I thought I was dreaming and had escaped what I've come to know as the completely communized institution that is the United States Navy. However, just when I had my doubts, they added the reassurance that I had no need to worry about being recognized and respected as an individual because "all data will be reported in the aggregate."

Of course, any adept "Master" knows better than to actually seek individual feedback in a personal way. After all, to do that might end up enabling people to feel justified in some manner of dissent or discontent. No, no, these authoritarians are well-versed in collectivism, and instead provide a computerized form with ready-made options of whether one would rather be forced to do "X" or forced to do "Y".

It's really kind of like voting. If you can convince people that they're somehow making a difference, and thus are personally responsible for their own mistreatment, they call their slavery freedom and persecute their fellow slaves without the "Master" even having to raise the whip. Notice how just like voting, it was explicitly emphasized that my participation is "entirely voluntary." If it's so voluntary, how about I don't give you my feedback and you don't threaten me with force if I don't do what you say. This, of course, is never an option because again like voting, whether you participate or not, people with guns will tell you what to do and claim justification based on your having voted (or at least had the opportunity).

A final similarity is found in the aspects of anonymity and aggregation. Only an individual has volition, and therefore, only an individual can make a decision and enact it. In this way, voting is really no different than an anonymous public opinion survey in which the available choices have been limited to only those options pre-approved by the rulers. For instance, I can present my friends with the chance to anonymously vote over which of two movies to watch, but when they open their eyes it would be a complete misnomer to claim that they chose the film so they have nobody to blame but themselves if they don't like it.

Freedom has nothing to do with voting and opinion surveys, and it has everything to do with not having force initiated against you.

Days 108-112 - Interview Responses

2009-08-23T23:59:00.006-05:00

I'm guessing that many of you have already seen my interview with Pete Eyre of the Motorhome Diaries, but if not, press play below or the rest of this blog probably won't make nearly as much sense.

I'm continuing to receive feedback (positive and negative) about the video, but of course I'd be interested to read more in the comments section or by email at warisimmoral@gmail.com. On the encouraging side, a classmate from high school, whom I hadn't spoken with since graduation, saw the clip on my Facebook page, checked out my website, and then took the time to write. She shared how she joined the military right out of high school and ended up feeling both disappointed with her experience and embarrassed that she had enlisted. Overall, she thought the interview was really cool and that it was great what I was doing.

I appreciated knowing that my efforts had a significant enough impact on someone I haven't seen in 8 years that she took the time to write. Least to say, I absolutely assured her of how much I resonated with her feelings, in addition to thanking her for such an encouraging note.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, another person who was also in GTMO claimed that I'm "fabricating the truth to (my) own benefit," by "spreading lies" about what I saw. He said that he was there too, and he knows that "these dillweeds are being treated just fine."

Some of you reading the above lines might be utterly perplexed as to how he could say this, and if so, I encourage you to read my article, Behind the Wire: An Insider's Perspective on Gitmo. It provides an overview of how my understanding about GTMO changed in the aftermath of my own time there. Essentially, I can personally relate to the hatred and feelings of injustice that the above detractor expressed because they were my initial feelings as well. The difference is that much of my understanding has changed since that deployment. I tried to communicate some of the ideas that prompted my own transformation, and what follows is a substantial portion of my email response to this person.

In my interview I neither spread lies nor exaggerated anything. I was absolutely disturbed by what I saw and experienced in GTMO, but I didn't immediately understand the evil nature of the acts I helped support. As you apparently feel now, I first reacted with hatred for the men imprisoned there and scorn for the way I had to "cater to their needs."

I think the best way I can address this is to ask if you would you so boldly claim that what goes on in GTMO is fair treatment if you were the one down there in a cage? Would you honestly say that you were being treated well if you were locked up in that same fashion? If you were caged someplace where none of your family or friends could come visit you, and you had no idea of whether or not you would even stand trial or have any opportunity to publicly defend yourself, would you be saying that all the people that were involved with keeping you confined in that manner were "taking care" of you?

If you were completely unarmed and had 5+ guys in riot gear forcefully restrain you within your cell simply because you didn't give back your styrofoam meal container when asked, would you say that was being treated well? Would you say you were being mistreated if you decided not to eat, and thus were forcefully strapped into a chair and fed through a tube that was put down your throat?

I didn't understand these dynamics all immediately, and for better or worse, it's taken me more than a year to come to my current understanding of what I experienced in GTMO. Believe me when I say that I'm not just saying stuff or making it up for the purpose of getting out of the military. My understanding has fundamentally changed since I first came home.

I see now that it's absolutely not catering to those people's needs if they're being housed in cages against their will. I couldn't rightly say that I was taking care of you if I locked you in a closet and then shoved food and water through a hole in the door. Even if I provided you the world's best medical treatment, but still kept you in a cage, it wouldn't be doing you a service if all you wanted to do was leave.

One point that you made was that the people down there were horrible baby-killer types. A second point you made was that the US is working to try and return them to places they won't be killed. This doesn't make any sense. If the people who had been, and are, at GTMO are really the sub-human animalistic killers that you make them out to be, then why would any of them have been released?

The fact is that the majority of those who have been confined in GTMO have already been released from there because they were innocent. Innocent people being locked up is mistreatment, even if they're later released. Secondly, if there are any people who are as horrible as you make out, then it would be easy to use reason and evidence to prove to the world that these men are justly confined.

People should not be indefinitely held against their will for supposed crimes for which they've never been convicted. However, this is exactly what Barack Obama has said needs to happen with some of the people confined in Guantanamo Bay (http://www.reason.com/news/show/134775.html). If they are guilty, prove it. If they are innocent (as most of them undoubtedly were given the fact that the majority of those who were ever there have already been released) then those in the United States military and those giving them orders ("President"/"Congress") have committed horrible acts of evil.

Overall, the result of the video is that I'm continuing to hear from a number of other present and former members of the military. With that in mind, I'm asking you to forward this video to anybody who you know that's ever been in the "Armed Forces." Another option would be to post a link on your own Facebook page. While I definitely wouldn't guarantee that others will agree with what I have to say, I highly doubt they'll be bored by it.

P.S. If you're curious to find out more about Pete and the rest of the crew of the Motorhome Diaries, check out their website via their linked name, or read my previous mid-week blog (Meet My Interviewer).

_______________________________

My participation in the Complete Liberty Podcast looks to be continuing for the foreseeable future, so I leave it to you gentle reader to subscribe at either the iTunes Store or to check out the hosting site: http://completeliberty.libsyn.com/ . If you're looking for other listening specifically about war, I have one podcast of my own dedicated to this topic at http://warisimmoral.com/podcast

Days 106-107 - Meet My Interviewer (Video)

2009-08-18T20:17:00.009-05:00

If you haven't recently visited my homepage, WarIsImmoral.com, then you may not have realized that I participated in my first video interview with Pete Eyre of the Motorhome Diaries. The interview, still in post-production, is scheduled to be online later this week as part of Pete and Jason's almost real-time documentary, "Searching for Freedom in America."

In addition to meeting up with scores of individuals who value freedom and voluntary interactions, these peaceful liberty-activists have experienced some harsh physical abuse from people identifying themselves as "the government." As is sadly common in our society, the rights-violators who aggressed against the crew of the Motorhome Diaries did so in broad-daylight and while wearing official-looking costumes and shiny badges.

I figured there was no better way to introduce Pete and his friends, than to offer a video of them sharing about why they started the Motorhome Diaries, and how they came to be mistreated by the "Jones County Sheriff's Department."

To find out more about this incident visit http://motorhomediaries.com/jonescounty/ or use any of the above links to access their homepage.

Days 99-105 - In the Absence of Government

2009-08-16T23:59:00.012-05:00

I'm pleased to announce the first-ever "War Is Immoral Podcast." Before you continue reading, simply right-click the previous link and begin downloading the mp3. The show isn't yet available through the iTunes Store, so for the moment you'll have to download it directly and then add it to the mp3 player of your choice.

Episode 1 addresses the atrocity of keeping men in cages regardless of their captor's ability to prove their guilt or innocence (The Right to a Guilty Verdict). Additionally, the show exposes the precedent of unlimited executive power that was set by George W. Bush's disregard for both "Constitutional Law" and more importantly natural law (The Sinister Purpose Behind Bush Administration Lawlessness). The final segment is devoted to recognizing the efforts of a number of individuals trying to free themselves from the involuntary servitude that is generally known as "active duty military service" (Afghanistan War Resistor to "Put the War on Trial").

_______________________________

In last week's blog, I again put forward the idea that war is a function of the state, and therefore, if people are to ever stop waging wars, they must first stop enabling people to get away with initiating force under the guise of calling themselves government. As I stated last week:

Without the initiation of force, there can be no state, and without a state, all that will remain is a voluntary society.

As for what a voluntary society will look like, and how exactly it will function, no single person, or even group of people, has all the answers. However, this fact doesn't offer any justification for the evil that is government, nor does it serve as an excuse to claim that government (or war) is a "necessary evil." The reality is, that if anyone believed that she or he had a comprehensive plan for what each person should do in order to create a perfect society, this would only serve as an extremely strong utilitarian argument in favor of an absolute dictatorship.

In contrast, an advocate for anarchy, voluntaryism, agorism, market anarchism, or complete liberty, etc., believes that no individual or group would be either capable of or justified in organizing the nearly limitless interactions that comprise any society. Therefore, it is both moral and practical to refrain from initiating force against others.

The ends do not justify the means, so even if there is no all-encompassing plan that spells out exactly how each interaction in a free society will take place, it does not justify how people calling themselves government currently prohibit others from relating in this manner. If you still think that you are free to voluntarily interact with others because you live in the "land of the free," try to engage in trading $1,500 for a pound of cannabis, or, if you're not interested in such substances, try to give an individual a gift of more than $10,000 in one year without someone else saying that she or he has a rightful claim to part of that money (theft by the "IRS").

Looking at history, numerous "practical" arguments were made against the abolition of chattel slavery in America because it was said that nobody could explain exactly what would happen if tens of thousands of enslaved people were to suddenly become free. Likewise, it's argued today that if the millions of people who populate the geographic area known as America were to suddenly be freed from the tyranny of government, all manner of chaos would surely follow.

While there are myriad resources available about how a free society could flourish, the point is not to focus on whether or not we can properly predict the details of what will happen, but rather, just like the abolitionists of the 19th century, we must call for an end to the subjugation of ourselves and our fellow human beings, regardless of whether or not we have the perfect plan for what comes next.

_______________________________

Another avenue by which you can learn more about the illegitimacy of the state, as well as the values of a voluntary society, is to listen to the Complete Liberty Podcast: Episode 79. This week I again had the pleasure of co-hosting the show with Wes and Brett, and as always the episode is available for direct download by right-clicking here or for free at the iTunes Store.

Days 92-98 - A Website With a Purpose

2009-08-09T23:59:00.019-05:00

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009, will be the 100th day since I requested discharge from the military as a conscientious objector. If the claim that America has an "all volunteer military" were true, surely it would not take in excess of 100 days for an individual with a spotless "service record" to be freely allowed to go about his way. To apply this principle in another context, it would require some serious obfuscation and mental evasion to claim that somebody serving soup at a homeless shelter was there as a volunteer, if that person had actually only volunteered once 4 years ago, and had since been threatened with prison if he stopped continuing to "volunteer."

If you regularly read my blog, the contradictory nature of such government slogans is hopefully easily recognizable by now. However, for the newcomers, or those who have only caught bits and pieces along the way, I intend for this post to be a summary of my overarching purpose in maintaining the website WarIsImmoral.com

This site exists to promote the truth that war is always immoral because it inherently involves the initiation of the use of force. For this reason, virtuous people are naturally repulsed by war and compelled to end it. In advocating for peace, it's therefore necessary to address the institutions and ideas that perpetuate war. WarIsImmoral.com differentiates itself from most of the anti-war movement by identifying and condemning the following root causes of war:

Military "contracts": If individuals were free to leave "Active Duty" at will, the military would surely be rendered impotent. This is because a vast number of people would value staying alive, or the prospect of again being a "civilian," far more than the pittance paycheck that they currently receive from following the orders of their "superiors." Regardless, it's impossible to claim that someone is acting by choice, if failure to act will result in incarceration.

Taxation: The military is funded in the exact same manner by which it ensures a ready supply of labor, by force. Just as there would be a conspicuous absence of personnel if they were given the opportunity to leave, there would undoubtedly be an even greater void of funding if people chose for themselves how much they would pay in taxes. Ask yourself, how many thousands of dollars would you voluntarily send to the "Department of Defense"? In your consideration, please remember that you will have no assurance that millions of other strangers will even give anything. Simply put, while "military contracts" are a justification for slavery, taxation is merely a fancy word used to try to legitimize theft.

The State: The above two practices, as well as war itself, would not be possible were it not generally considered acceptable for people calling themselves government to commit the very actions which, in any other context, are almost unanimously condemned as wrong. As many people have aptly identified, government is essentially legitimized force. Therefore, if war is immoral due to its initiation of force, government must also be equally unjustified. The progression of this reasoning, from denouncing war to decrying government, loosely follows what has been my own journey to consistently apply the moral absolute that it's wrong to initiate force.

Unlike the immorality of government, people seem to find it much easier to overcome the massive propaganda scheme that is in place to convince them that war can be justified. This is likely due to the difficulty involved in obscuring the obvious and intentional destruction of life and property that is the hallmark of war. By emphasizing the initiation of force as the explanation for the immorality of war, I hope to encourage people to consistently apply this axiom to every aspect of their life.

One can never control the actions of another person, and therefore, as long as people are autonomous there will always exist the possibility of rights violations. However, by ridding society of its greatest criminals, that is government, there can be vast improvement. As Murray Rothbard said,

"no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state's unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind." (Society Without a State)

Without the initiation of force, there can be no state, and without a state, all that will remain is a voluntary society. This doesn't mean that certain individuals, or even groups of individuals, won't try to hit people and take their stuff, but what it does mean, is that such persons will be denounced as violent thieves instead of praised as "service providers."

_______________________________

If you've been following along, or if you're perhaps interested to tune out the radio and listen to something new, I co-hosted another episode of the "Complete Liberty Podcast." Episode 78 focuses on supernatural contradictions, free will, behaviorism, determinism, and compatibilism.

As always the show is available for free download from the iTunes Store, or by right-clicking here and selecting "Save As" or "Download Linked File" (Safari).

Days 85-91 - State-Sponsored Terrorism

2009-08-02T23:59:00.032-05:00

As I explained in my article The Fallacy of Preemptive Violence, there is no mystery as to why terrorists hijacked and crashed airplanes on September 11, 2001. It's a tragedy that this occurred, but what's worse is that individuals claiming to be the government of the men and women killed launched a so-called "War on Terror" in response. As an unwilling laborer for the United States Navy, I regularly wear a costume that includes two colorful pins of fabric called the "Global War on Terrorism Service Medal" and the "Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal." I'm unenthusiastic about being forced to wear said uniform (who's ever happy to be forced to do anything after all), and I'm downright disgusted that the ribbons are intended to draw attention to my "service" in support of this cause.

If I had my druthers, I would have absolutely nothing to do with the murderous organization known as the "Department of Defense." However, seeing as the mysterious decision-makers at this immoral institution have not, in the past 90+ days, answered my request to be discharged, I will avoid imprisonment and continue to wear the prescribed accoutrements for a Petty Officer Second Class. At the same time, I'll also conjecture as to some "medals" that would more accurately represent what this so-called "War on Terror" has accomplished.

Military decorations are arranged in order of precedence, and on my hypothetical uniform the top medal would undoubtedly have to be the Death Toll Medal. The qualifications for wearing such a device would be related to the number of people that died as a result of U.S. military actions during the member's career. Those who "served" during peacetime would be hard-pressed to earn such a commendation, for the minimum death toll would need to be quite high given the astronomical number of deaths that quickly compile during war. In the current wars, a baseline of 500,000 dead would merit wearing the ribbon, with a gold star added for each 500,000 thereafter. Unfathomable though this may seem, it sadly fits with the the almost 1.5 million estimated deaths from these wars.

Although such casualty counts are minimized to the point of being generally unknown, surely all this death must mean that Islamic terrorism will soon be relegated to the history books as a phenomenon of the past. Unfortunately this is not so, and thus ribbon number two would come into play. It would be known as the Guarantor of Future Wars Medal. It comes in second to the Death Toll award, not for its lack of evil effects, but because its repercussions are much less easily measured. This decoration would represent one's efforts to ensure that there will forever be a growing population of once innocent people who are now bent on seeking vengeance for the unprovoked violence perpetrated against them by the U.S. Armed Forces.

Beyond the obvious death and destruction enacted in Afghanistan and Iraq, is the far more insidious effect of perpetuating the very need for a so-called "War on Terror." Considering that it is only because of the State that war exists, it should be no surprise at all that such a parasitical cycle is in place. The argument that "we can't just stop the War on Terror, because there are people out there that want to kill us," is an objection that I've frequently heard.

From my personal experience, I believe I can honestly say that I've been face-to-face with people who would have killed me if they had the opportunity. Now let's look at the all-important context in which that took place. The people to which I'm referring had been abducted from their native lands, possibly tortured, and then caged for years by people wearing the same clothes that I then wore when I met them. These people didn't necessarily know why they were so cruelly confined, nor did they necessarily have any reason to hope that they would be released. That this is true, has been confirmed by the man who currently accepts responsibility for these men's continued imprisonment, Barrack Obama.

In his May speech the president said these prisoners "cannot be prosecuted" because there is not enough admissible evidence against them yet cannot be released because they "pose a clear danger to the American people."

I feel confident in claiming that if they were put in a similar circumstance to that which I described, a vast majority of people would have homicidal ideations pertaining to their captors, and even extending to the friends, family, and financial supporters of their captors. I believe this would be true regardless of the cultural, religious, or even "national" backgrounds of the people involved. Through this process, a new generation of both "terrorists" and "soldiers" are forged in their opposing, and not altogether inaccurate beliefs, that the other is out to get them and do their family harm.

Whether from the unjust confinement that I saw firsthand in Guantanamo Bay, or the slaughter of 100+ civilians in a mistaken U.S. airstrike, such violent and unjustified actions either serve to strengthen the resolve of those already convinced to violently seek revenge against the U.S., or they act as a catalyst for radicalizing what were previously peaceful people. Whatever the case, no good end can be achieved through such evil means.

Therefore, if trying to use violence to end violence is no solution, what can be done to bring about change? According to Ludwig Von Mises, "To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war." That ideology can be summarized in one word: Statism. War is imperative for the continuance of the State, but neither the State, nor war are necessary. In fact, both are immoral, because, by definition, they both involve the initiation of the use of force.

If we are ever to achieve a society without war, we must chose to live in a society without government. Such a society is not a utopian dream, for there would undoubtedly still be individuals, or even groups, who engage in violence and theft. The difference would be the ostracism and moral condemnation with which any such individuals or groups would be confronted. In a Stateless society, a person demanding money, while threatening to harm you if you didn't comply, would be denounced and resisted as a mugger, instead of appeased and legitimized as a tax-collector.

Ultimately, the minutia of the names of ribbons on a military uniform is truly not a matter of great consequence. What is significant, is that by wearing that clothing, a person can commit the gravest injustice, murder, and yet do so while hundreds of millions of people cheer him on. Does it make any sense to scorn and punish one person for committing an action, and yet praise and support someone else for that same action, so long as it's done while wearing special clothing or using an official title? If enough people resolve this contradiction, then there will truly be an end to war, for there will be no State.

_______________________________

Another outstanding episode of the Complete Liberty Podcast is available. This week's show starts by addressing war, and the first article covered was an inspiration for this week's blog. As usual, Episode 77 is available for free at the iTunes Store or can be downloaded by right-clicking here and selecting "Save As" or "Download Linked File."

Days 77-84 - Honesty vs. Morality

2009-07-26T23:59:00.013-05:00

I again had the privilege of co-hosting the Complete Liberty Podcast with Wes and Brett last week. We continued our discussion of an article about necessary evil, this time venturing into the realm of religion, family, and so-called "life-boat scenarios." Additionally the issues of valid contract and kangaroo courts (governmental courts), places where the prosecutor and judge work for the same organization, were addressed as well.

I encourage you to check out Episode 76 - The Seen and Unseen of Politics, Mythologies, Life-boat Ethics, Evil, and Contract Theory. The show is available for download or online listening by clicking, or right-clicking, here for the mp3, or for free at the iTunes Store.

_______________________________

My original intent for this week’s blog had been to focus on a different topic than that of “military service” as involuntary servitude; however, the nature of the many comments that were posted has led me to respond to a different aspect of this issue.

Despite a number of comments that criticized my desire to immediately and completely separate from myself from the group of individuals known as the United States Navy, no one defended my “enlistment contract” as a valid excuse for forcing my labor. Hopefully this a result of my presentation of the morally consistent definition of enforceable contract as defined by Murray Rothbard. In their comments, Jay and Nick’s recurring condemnation of my action instead seemed to be of a moral, or value-driven, nature. The following are a few examples.

From Jay:

"What N. Morris seems to and I to assert is that it becomes a matter of personal integrity. That is, be man enough to realize that you might have made a poor decision. But unless the other party is willing to renegotiate, you should stick to it."

From Nick:

“The way I figure it (with my simple infantry mind) when you make an agreement for anything weather it be legally on paper or verbally agreed upon with a spit on hand shake, a man's word is his honor.”

“My issue with what my good friend is doing has vary little to do with the legal aspect of it and everything to do with the honor and the word of the man who signed the contract. It is my belief that a man's honor bound agreement to fufill his time in the military outweighs his legal one.”

And finally, what I believe has been the most problematic but succinct statement:

“just because you suddenly see something as differnt or wrong doesn't mean you should not fufill your word.”

Many parties in this discussion, myself included, then made references to everything from the Holocaust, to the forced suicide of Roman soldiers, to the current murders committed by those collectively known as the United States Armed Forces. There is definitely value to be had in exploring the significance of these ideas in both past and present situations. However, amidst the back-and-forth barrage of analogies and opinions, it seems as though the truth of Nick’s last statement has neither been substantiated nor directly shown to be false.

Quoted below is a portion of the comment I posted in response to Nick. I had hoped, that without explicitly stating it, I could use an analogy to prompt Nick to reach his own conclusion about the disastrous implications of what he said.

“. . . would Nick have told a Nazi soldier that it didn't matter if he came to see Hitler's "Final Solution" as genocide because, after all, this soldier had given his word to be in the German Army?”

Nick’s response did not answer my question as to whether or not he would tell the German soldier to fulfill his word by obeying his orders to execute Jews. Instead, Nick wrote:

“To answer your qurry... there were many German soldiers who did their duty to their fellow soldiers and their country regardless of the fact that they knew Hitler was wrong … Just because Hitler was horribly immoral and without honor does not mean the normal German soldier out on the line was without morals or was dishonorable.”

This response completely ignores the issue of whether or not it’s right to keep your word if it involves doing what you believe is wrong. To further confound my attempts to understand his position, Nick later wrote back to B.R. Merrick that:

“I couldn't agree more with the statement "To follow orders instead of doing what you know is right is not honorable",”

To argue that one should not break one’s word (i.e. a promise to follow orders) while at the same time claiming that it would be dishonorable to follow orders if it involves doing something that you know is wrong, is essentially to advocate that one should act dishonorably (i.e. although it would be dishonorable, if you’ve given your word, one should do something that is wrong simply because one promised to do so). The other explanation is that Nick blatantly contradicted himself. Either way, it would appear that Nick and Jay place more value on keeping one’s word, than on refraining from wrong actions. This is likely due to an errant categorization of dishonesty as inherently wrong (a problem I address at the end of this blog).

At present, I have no illusions that either Jay, or Nick, as self-described members of the military, understands his actions to be wrong. That they’re sincere in this belief doesn’t justify any murders they may have committed, but it does explain why they personally would value keeping one’s word as more important than exiting a job that they don’t think inherently involves immoral actions.

What I fail to comprehend, is that if they know I believe war is immoral, and the military exists for waging war, why would they attempt to convince me, or anyone, that it would be better (in the sense of “honor”, “personal integrity”, etc.) to keep my word if it means supporting that which I believe is immoral? I cannot but assume that they somehow missed the meaning of what they said, because who would honestly argue that a contract-killer who comes to realize the evil nature of his job is still “honor-bound” to carry out his next “hit” simply because he gave his word that he would do so?

Given our similar upbringings, if Nick or Jay were to disagree with my assertion that war is immoral, that would be much more understandable to me than arguing that it’s dishonorable or not acting with integrity to do all that I can to avoid supporting actions that I believe are immoral. Humans naturally strive to avoid dissonance between belief and action. Once someone believes that an action is right or wrong, it’s to be expected that she or he will try and act, or not act, accordingly.

Even though I believe it, I have not attempted to convince anyone that they should leave the military because it would be “honorable.” Rather, I have put great effort into spreading the truth that war is immoral. I do this, because if people believe they support a just war, there is little or no hope of persuading them to change their actions. However, if they understand that war is immoral, then they will undoubtedly feel a strong internal compulsion to leave the military.

Finally, and most importantly, I believe Jay and Nick’s claims errantly equate honesty and/or keeping one’s word with morality. This is not merely a matter of semantics, but one of critical importance in deciding what is, or is not, an immoral action, and therefore, how actions should be prioritized. Properly understood, morality is proscriptive; in other words, it prohibits certain actions as wrong as opposed to prescribing actions as right. In sum, it is immoral to initiate the use of force against another human, or his or her property, and any action can be understood to be moral or immoral by this simple definition.

In this way, lying, or failing to keep a promise, cannot inherently be understood to be immoral. There are innumerable instances in which you can be dishonest, or not keep your word, and yet, you can still do so without initiating the use of force against any person, or any person’s property. For example, a man promises to be forever married to a woman; however, said woman then proceeds to regularly get drunk and beat the man. The man has made a promise, but in filing for divorce, and breaking his promise, he isn’t acting immorally, because he is not inherently initiating the use of force against the woman or her property.

This is not to say that honesty and keeping one’s word should not be valued. These behaviors are most definitely important, and they should be recognized as critical virtues of any desirable society. However, the mistake is to categorize honesty as a moral behavior. Doing so can result in committing a truly immoral action out of the desire to keep one’s word.

Consider the following: if being dishonest is immoral, then those who lied about hiding Jews, or broke promises in order to help black people escape slavery, were acting immorally. Likewise, if breaking a promise is classified as an immoral behavior, it creates the very paradox illustrated by Nick and Jay’s claims that it’s dishonorable to break one’s word, even if keeping one’s word involves committing immoral actions. While honesty and keeping promises are admirable behaviors in most daily circumstances, issues of morality rightfully trump these virtues when choosing to adhere to one standard involves failing to live up to the other.

Days 71-76 - A Misunderstanding of Contract

2009-07-19T23:59:00.014-05:00

In addition to this week's blog, I also wish to call your attention to my first foray into podcasting. Wes Bertrand, (author, psychologist, and podcast host) had me join him as a co-host on Episode 75 of the Complete Liberty Podcast. Wes describes the episode as discussing the evils of militaries, the psychology of identity, selfless statism, and recognizing truth.

You can download the show for free by clicking the following link to the iTunes Store

You can listen online by clicking here, or right-clicking to save the file to your computer.

_______________________________

I appreciate the time and effort that Jay Jones put into his critique of my last post “What’s In a Contract.” His response is found uninterrupted in the comments section of last week’s blog. I believe his criticism is largely in response to a combination of misunderstanding what I meant and misapplying the principles advocated by Murray Rothbard. For easy differentiation, Jay's writing will be in red throughout this post.

Although this may not seem to directly address the issue of the immorality of war, I believe it’s both related and relevant. I honestly think that the American military would be rendered impotent were it not for the forced labor of military personnel. Working at the Navy’s only boot camp, I regularly interact with individuals who wish to leave the military after experiencing it firsthand, but instead they are forced to continue to “train” against their will. Only days and weeks after joining the Navy, if given the opportunity, a significant percentage of those who signed “contracts” would undoubtedly leave after discovering the true nature of military “service.”

Considering that the vast majority of military personnel claim that they were lied to by their Recruiters, it would only make sense that after discovering these lies, they would not continue to work under the false pretenses under which those very “contracts” were signed. It’s only after weeks of indoctrination and de-individuation that such persons willingly continue to work or even reenlist.

This is why spreading the truth that the organization known as the Department of Defense uses slavery to carry out its wars is crucial to ending both war and involuntary servitude.

First, to rebut the claim that one cannot “transfer one’s self-ownership”. That begs the simple question: “Why can’t I?” The analogy of someone else animating your body is a false choice.

The empirical fact that someone else cannot animate your body is not a false choice but incontrovertible evidence that one cannot transfer her or his self-ownership. An individual may choose to direct her behavior to fulfill the wishes or desires of someone else, but she is no less in control of her body and mind and, therefore, no less a self-owner because she does this. The reality is that no matter how many contracts you sign or oaths you swear, you cannot have any less ownership in yourself (i.e. control over your mind and body).

Entering into a contract, in any degree, doesn’t imply the loss of all bodily or cognitive function.

I fully agree, and this only serves to further answer the first question of why you can’t transfer your self-ownership.

But to assert that one person, for whatever reason would not be able to choose to limit their choice, freedom or any number of things that binding oneself to a contract inherently implies is a horribly misguided sentiment. If the price was right, who is to say that I should not enter into a bond that said I must not speak about one specific thing for a given time? I think that Dan would assert that this would be separation “from your right to internally control your body”. But why couldn’t I limit myself, for awhile, if I were to choose? To assert that I couldn’t would infringe on my personal liberty and invalidate most, if not all, contracts. .

I did not, nor do I, assert that a person should be prohibited from being able to “choose to limit their choice, freedom” etc. so long as these limitations are self-imposed and self-enforced. I believe it would be absolutely wrong to try and force you to speak about something if you decided to refrain from speaking about “one specific thing for a given time.” However, it would be equally wrong to try and force you to stop saying something no matter what you may have signed or to whom you may have promised that you wouldn’t do so.

As an individual Jay has the right to say, or not say, anything on his own property because exercising this ability does not constitute the initiation of force against anyone else. However, if Jay were to sign a piece of paper promising that he wouldn’t make certain statements for a given period of time, such a document should not be viewed as an enforceable contract. I’m not advocating that Jay should be prevented from signing such a piece of paper but rather that he could not justly be penalized for failing to fulfill his promise.

The reason the hypothetical “no speech contract” cannot be justly enforced is because it involves no transfer of property and, therefore, no implicit theft if not fulfilled. Jay is incapable of transferring his right to speak because it is an inherent part of his self-ownership. Even if he signs a “contract” swearing that he will not speak about something, there is no transfer of this aspect of his self-ownership to the “receiving party.” Ultimately, Jay’s ability to speak whatever he wishes is an unalienable right.

If the “receiving party” in Jay’s contract transfers property ($1) to him in exchange for his promised future action (silence), then such property can be rightly understood to have been transferred conditionally and not absolutely. Should Jay fail to make good on his word, it would be implicit theft for him to keep the $1. What would be wrong, would be for the “receiving party” to duct tape Jay’s mouth shut or to confine him to a cage because he started talking. It is obvious then that if there were no transfer of property to Jay it would also be wrong for him to be forced to maintain his silence.

To directly answer Jay’s question of why he couldn’t limit himself from speaking for a while if he so chose, I would say that he is certainly welcome to do so, and I never implied otherwise. My assertion is that it would be wrong for someone to initiate the use of force against him for failing to live up to his promise.

However, the hallmark of true libertarianism is the mixture of eisegetic views of fanciful writings, the inability to look two steps ahead as well as a widespread failure to apply theories to the real world. “True Libertarianism” works in a world where true libertarians are gods. Dan’s excerpt of Rothbard’s work falls in line with my assertion. He overlooks (because it doesn’t fit with his world view, I suspect) the actual cost of a contract. Rothbard may have had an ethical book published. I doubt he did well in econ though.

That Jay expressed his doubt that Rothbard “did well in econ,” is an unfortunate example of shoving one’s foot deep into one’s mouth. Until his death in 1995, Murray Rothbard was in fact the preeminent economist of the Austrian School. He held a doctorate in the Philosophy of Economics from Columbia and was a distinguished professor at the University of Nevada. In addition to publishing numerous books on economics, he helped found the world center for Austrian Economics (Ludwig Von Mises Institute) as well as the scholarly journal “Review of Austrian Economics.” (Wikipedia: Murray Rothbard)

As for Jay’s claims of failing to apply ideas to the real world, I find this to be in direct contradiction to my condemnation and call for change to the very real world situation in which I’m forced to labor on behalf of others because of a past promise.

Simply put, contracts have both a cost and a price. What Rothbard and Dan both look at is the price. However, the cost may be far more. While an entity may offer pay for a given period in exchange for any number of things (work, silence, sex, whatever) they make the assumption that whatever problem they were trying to fix, or gap they were trying to fill, will be taken care of for that set amount of time. Thus, they can shift resources elsewhere.

The flaw in the thinking here seems to be in the idea that “If I am basically being paid as I go, me breaking the contract is ok. No harm, no foul.” That’s simply not the case. Reneging on a contract causes a shift in resources, time and personnel that the contract was designed to avoid for a set amount of time. This is the de facto theft that Rothbard cannot see. If not for future assurances, why make contracts at all? Thus, if Dan were to break his contract, it would be implicit theft.

Again, Jay fails to address the exchange of property that is essential to any justifiably enforceable contract. The fact that the expectations of people in the military would go unmet if I were to fail to fulfill my promise of labor cannot in any way be seen as my possessing any property that justly belongs to people in the military. Even though I signed such a promise in writing, it does not change the lack of property involved.

Jay is correct that the military might experience losses as a result of having decided to “shift resources elsewhere.” However, any such losses are always a risk when making predictions about human behavior, and they would not equate to theft on my part. If you doubt this, tell me what property belonging to the military I would possess if I were to stop working for them.

The analogy of the baseball player vs. the military is another false choice. I have known Dan for as long as I can remember. I know him to be an intelligent person. I cannot accept the argument that he didn’t know what he was getting into. To do so would imply wholesale ignorance on his part. The same goes for the baseball star. He knows the consequences of his actions when he signs on the dotted line. Dan did as well (as have I 3 times). Consequences are inherently a part of a contract and they vary. Given one’s place in history, indentured servitude could be an excellent option. But the argument of whether the cost was paid up front or in installments is paper thin. If Dan were to have received a bonus, would his arguments really be framed differently? I think not.

Jay does not explain what he means by saying that the analogy of the baseball player and the military is a false choice, so I cannot address this claim.

I’m glad that Jay doesn’t accept the argument that I didn’t know what I was getting into by signing a piece of paper promising to work for the military. I’m the only person who can truly answer as to whether or not I understood, and yet I would not accept this argument either. The fact that I did understand what I was doing when I signed those papers is never something that I have contested, and therefore, I’m unsure why Jay highlighted this truth.

If Jay was pointing this out for the purpose of arguing that a consequence is justified so long as someone understands beforehand what the consequence will be, then I vehemently disagree. I knew when I signed those papers that if I failed to fulfill my promise others would claim justification for imprisoning me. At the time, I agreed with this, but that neither made it right at the time, nor does it justify the threat of such action now that I properly understand it as enslavement.

My overall argument that I am currently enslaved would not be framed differently had I received a bonus tied to a set number of years of work. However, such a bonus would equate to the transfer of property, and therefore, as with Jay and his $1 received in exchange for silence, I would rightly transfer back any property I had conditionally received.

Although these clarifications are important to a proper understanding of what rightly constitutes a contract, it is irrelevant to my current circumstances. Unfortunately, those people identified as the military believe that I can rightfully be forced to fulfill my promise despite the fact that there would not be any implicit theft of property on my part if I were allowed to quit.

Dan’s lack of concern about his future employment adds nothing to this debate; it only shows that others may, whether they agree or disagree with him, find him hirable. The same goes for the persistence of taxes or the military. It has nothing to do with the debate (although everything to do with the failure to apply theory to the world and looking past step two). Neither does using the rape example. That analogy simply preys on our culture’s view on prostitution and other mores. If in another time or place; people wouldn’t look so harshly on said example.

My addressing my future employment was not for the purpose of debate, but seeing as this is my blog, I added it because some readers inquired about my perspective on this issue, and I figured that others who know me would be interested as well. I remain unclear on what is meant by “looking past step two,” and I can only postulate that it is somehow an argument that the ends can justify the means. As for the rape example, it remains pertinent, regardless of the prevailing cultural views on sex because it addresses the central question of our debate: whether or not it’s right to force someone to keep a promise.

In conclusion, who is to say what I can or cannot chose to do or give up? This is the nature of contractual law. Both parties giving up something of value for something they happen to find more valuable. The clauses or timeframe of said contract have no bearing in this debate. Simply that, at the time of signing, both parties accepted the terms. For good or for bad Dan, I and most of you have done the same at some time. The fact that we gave up something whether it be money, goods, time or a combination means little. And to renege is theft on some level. However, the greatest litmus test is to turn the contract around and play devil’s advocate. And here is where Dan’s argument meets its greatest failure: One party is always cheated when the other doesn’t come through.

Jay’s conclusion makes clear that he does not recognize the transfer of property as the key to understanding just contract. Without a transfer of property, as in the case of a promise, reneging cannot be theft because theft requires the possession of someone else’s just property. In cases where property has been conditionally transferred dependent on the fulfillment of some action, the property should be returned if the contract is not fulfilled. However, in no case, is force ever justified to make someone keep a promise. Nevertheless, this is the standard operating procedure for those comprising the “Department of Defense.”

Ultimately, Jay is correct in implying that, apart from initiating the use of force, nobody should be able to justifiably say what a person “can or cannot chose to do or give up.” If this is his belief, I wonder why he does not see the contradiction in then arguing that I should be forced to continue to labor for someone else? Is slavery not one of the worst examples of forcing someone else’s action?

Days 67-70 - What's In a Contract?

2009-07-12T23:59:00.006-05:00

The most common reason given to invalidate my claim that I am currently a slave seems to be the fact that I do not deny having once signed a piece of paper that said I agreed to work for the "Navy" for 8 years (5 years "active," 3 "inactive"). If you were unaware, I publicly decried this tyranny in Days 60-64, which was a blog that included my rebuttal to the "Investigating Officer," a paper copy of which is also currently circulating among those who identify themselves as my "Chain of Command."

To argue that the manner in which I'm presently forced to labor under the threat of imprisonment is not slavery simply because I once signed a sheet of paper is to pretend that it is possible to transfer one's self-ownership (or at least, to rent it). It is an easily observable fact that, while alive, you cannot allow anyone else to animate your body and use it in place of you. Simply put, self-ownership is an absolutely inalienable right; you cannot be separated from your right to internally control your own body. Even in slavery then, a person cannot rightly be said to be the property of someone else, but only a forced laborer on that individual's behalf.

The question then becomes, can a person ever consent to being forced to labor? This is, of course, inherently contradictory because force is an action initiated against someone in the absence of consent. For example, a woman cannot consent to be raped, for then it would not be rape, but consensual sex. With this truth in mind, who would argue that if a woman were to sign a contract saying she would have sex with a man whenever he wanted for the next five years, that man would then be justified in having sex with her even after the woman began to protest and say that she no longer wanted to have sex with him? Who would defend the man saying, "Well, she voluntarily signed a contract. Therefore, it's consensual sex, and she has no grounds for complaint. After all, nobody forced her to sign the contract."

Hopefully nobody would make this argument, and yet this same logic has repeatedly been the rationale given to me for why it is right that I be forced to continue working for the organization known as the "United States Navy." What is different? For both the hypothetical woman and myself, we signed pieces of paper agreeing to engage in certain behavior at a future point in time. At a later point, we both no longer desire to perform the previously agreed to behavior. If the previous logic would not be applied to a woman who promised she would engage in sex, why then is the argument applied to me? How is it right for others to force me to act against my will? The principles involved are the same; the only difference is the promised action.

Additionally, I suspect that not only would the hypothetical man be generally condemned for forcing the woman to fulfill her "contract," but the very piece of paper that the woman signed would be considered invalid and barbaric, certainly not a binding contract. Why then are "enlistment contracts" considered to be anything different? They are surely nothing more than promises of future action, just as the hypothetical woman's contract was such a promise.

Whether or not such "contracts" involve the transfer of benefits to the individual making the promise of future labor is irrelevant. Ultimately, the reason such "contracts" are not valid is that no person can alienate her or his right of self-ownership in the present, let alone can they rightly contract to do so in the future.

I don't mean to imply that there are no such things as promises. I do mean to emphasize that it is most definitely wrong to initiate the use of force against people simply for breaking a promise. With these clarifications in mind, the natural question arises as to how one differentiates between a contract and a promise. The answer is based on whether or not there was an exchange of property.

A promise is a statement of intended future action; a contract involves a real-time exchange of property. In his book, Ethics of Liberty (available free online), Murray Rothbard makes the following critical specifications regarding the nature of contracts:

“Unfortunately, many libertarians devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society. Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party. In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts.” (page 131)

From this, I believe that if I were to break my "contract" with the Navy (something I don’t intend to do), it would not result in the implicit theft of any property. The Navy has not given me bonuses, advanced pay, or any fringe benefits such as a car, or a vacation home in the Hamptons, which could rightly be considered property and understood to be in exchange for my agreed upon future labor.

Each month that I work, more money that was stolen from other people is deposited into my bank account. Make no mistake, this is not a voluntary exchange (either between myself or the people from whom the money is expropriated), but it does occur in the present. Hypothetically, if I were to fail in fulfilling my contract by no longer laboring or reporting for duty, there would not only be a lack of moral or ethical grounds for imprisonment, but there would also be no legitimate reason to attempt to extract any type of repayment for my failure.

As to the pragmatic question of how the "military" could continue to operate without enslaving people to it, that's easy: it couldn't, and so it would cease to exist. Thus would end yet another form of slavery, and liberty-loving people everywhere would undoubtedly cry, "Good riddance!" No other employer forces people to continue to work for them under the threat of imprisonment. In these other industries that don't force people to labor, one’s reputation becomes immensely more important. Going back to an analogy I've used in other blogs, if I were a baseball player who failed to live up to his contract, I would legitimately have to return any property that had already been transferred to me in exchange for my promised future labor. Worse, I would face the extremely forbidding prospect of trying to convince another ball team to extend me an offer that I really would keep this time.

As for my own future employment, I have little concern that I will fail to find work because of a tarnished reputation. Going forward, I'm confident that there are myriad individuals who will gladly exchange their property for my labor. These are the type of persons who are of such character that they acknowledge that it is definitely better not to persevere in wrongdoing, merely for the sake of keeping one’s word.

In conclusion, I did sign a piece of paper promising to work for those calling themselves the "Navy." But which is immoral: that I no longer want to live up to my word in this regard, or that those same people are threatening me with incarceration if I don't continue laboring for them?

*My role in the process of seeking discharge as a conscientious objector ended when I filed my rebuttal last week. From this point forward, I'm simply waiting for a decision as to whether or not my "request" will be granted. Given this new set of circumstances, I expect that there will be few, if any, progress reports to give until a decision is made.

In the meantime, I intend to cut back to posting only on a weekly basis. Hopefully, this reduction in quantity will result in higher quality content that more effectively dispels the deadly memes that justify war. Of course, if an urgent issue develops, I won't hesitate to keep you apprised via a midweek blog.

Thanks for reading, and please, keep questioning.

Daniel

Days 65 & 66 - Words & Flags

2009-07-08T23:59:00.004-05:00

Much like the comments section of my last blog, My Rebuttal to the report of the "Investigating Officer" has been met with silence. After having read what I submitted, one of the doctor's with whom I work did the easily recognized gesture for "over their heads" as explanation for why there was no reaction from the powers that be.

Unfortunately, I think the idea that forced labor = slavery is not a concept that pushes the limits of anyone's mental faculties, and thus ignorance is not a valid excuse. Instead, I believe the problem is one of conscience. If those who demand my labor under the threat of imprisonment were to objectively evaluate their actions in light of this simple truth, the result would be such an extreme level of cognitive dissonance that a change in behavior would be unavoidable.

As Stefan Molyneux has pointed out, once a behavior is recognized as evil, it ceases to continue. Evil can only flourish when that which is evil is presented as that which is good. And what facilitates the illusion that juxtaposes evil and good? Language.

Think of the worst atrocities that you can recall from human history or your own personal life? How did those who perpetrated such deeds describe their actions? Did those who called themselves the American government advocate an unparalleled slaughter of the brown-skinned indigenous peoples who lived on the land they wanted? Of course not. Instead they spoke of "Manifest Destiny." Sounds glorious, right? Well, apparently it was an effective enough illusion that the murder of millions of people was passed off as the righteous enactment of a loving God's will.

Sadly, the mass extermination that took place within "America's" borders gets quickly glossed over in favor of horrors for which people who flew a different flag can be blamed. Most frequently the Nazis. If you've always thought the Nazi Holocaust was worse than anything "America" has done, think again, or redefine worse so as not to include the possibility of multiple times more people dead.

Independent research has shown death totals between "10 million and 114 million indians (sic) as a direct result of US actions. Please note that Nazi Holocaust estimates are between 6 and 11 million; thereby making the Nazi Holocaust the 2nd largest mass murder of a class of people in history." Neither Hitler's minions, nor those who committed genocide under the banner of the American Flag, were able to do so while plainly stating their actions. One group had advocated a "Final Solution," and another carried out their "manifest destiny," both sound like something any good person would want, and yet both resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

The atrocities carried out under the banner of the swastika have likely forever designated that emblem as a symbol of the worst evil. Honestly, I've never encountered a person that said, "Yes, the Holocaust was horrible, but look at all the good things the Nazis did. The roads were improved, the garbage was taken away, and for a while, national defense was at an all-time high."

In contrast, only a few days ago, I encountered hundreds of individuals who were waving the banner under which a different genocide was committed. With a few of these people, I did engage in conversation, and yet they maintained that whatever travesties were committed by those who used the "stars and stripes" as their symbol, they were "proud to be an American."

Are you?

Days 60-64 - My Rebuttal

2009-07-06T23:59:00.002-05:00

The following is my rebuttal to the report of the "Investigating Officer." Thus ends any part that I will have in my request to be discharged from the Navy as a conscientious objector.

To Whoever Decides If I Will Be Discharged:

I agree with the recommendation of the “Investigating Officer” that I am a conscientious objector to war and should be discharged. My rebuttal, therefore, is to the legitimacy of the reasoning by which you justify forcing me to labor on your behalf.

I will no longer pretend that I am a member of an “all volunteer” military force. In the previous phrase, the word “volunteer” is used in the present tense; however, I no longer voluntarily work for you, nor do thousands of others whom you call Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines. We follow orders because we ultimately know that if we do not, we will be imprisoned. This is servitude, not volunteerism.

Undoubtedly, like me, all these persons did at one time voluntarily sign a piece of paper promising to work for what is known as the “Department of Defense,” but natural law and logic reveal that a contract of enslavement is a contradiction. A slave is a person who submits to the edicts and threats of another, not a person who freely chooses. We volunteered (past tense), and this fact does nothing to address whether or not our continued labors are voluntary. As for me, I am telling you unequivocally that although I continue to work for you, this is under duress; rather than being voluntary, my work is done to avoid the further restriction of my liberty that would come from imprisonment.

If you consider yourself justified in exercising authority over me, then you inherently deny my self-ownership. Such a blatant usurpation of individual autonomy continues largely unrecognized because of widespread conformity and propaganda that employs false notions of freedom. The result is that people regularly favor the illusion of liberty over the recognition that they are obeying others’ commands to avoid being thrown in cages, or worse.

Who, except those calling themselves “the military,” imprisons people for quitting their jobs? Had I signed a piece of paper promising to play baseball for the Chicago Cubs for five years, I would not go to jail if I quit after three years (although I would likely forfeit the outstanding monetary benefits promised upon fulfillment of the contract). However, you act as if there would somehow be justification for imprisoning me simply because you wear a different uniform than a baseball jersey.

Despite the fact that I only work for you under the threat of imprisonment, I am not without volition. I have therefore chosen to jump through the bureaucratic hoops that you have established by filing this request. However, I do not want this fact to be misinterpreted as my condoning the legitimacy of this process. Slavery has been, and continues to be, an atrocity perpetuated by those who call themselves “the government of the United States of America.” I hope that this will one day change, and I’m working toward that end.

In the meantime, I do not expect that you will allow me to freely leave merely because I have exposed the truth of my involuntary servitude. Deep down, you already know this truth all too well. Most simply, a slave is someone who is forced to labor, incurring harmful consequences for attempting to sever the corrupt relationship with the master. Whether or not you choose to classify me as a conscientious objector, the truth of my slavery (and yours) is plainly evident to people who yearn to be free to make their own choices. Every day that I continue to work for you not by choice but because of your threat of imprisonment, you only add further evidence to the truth that I am indisputably a slave.

(signed)

Daniel J. Lakemacher

Days 58-59 - The Fallacy of Preemptive Violence

2009-07-01T23:59:00.007-05:00

Throughout the numerous interactions I've had with people who disagree with my absolute opposition to war, I've found a great deal of consistency. Such persons do not argue against the destructive nature of war. They do not pretend that war doesn't result in large numbers of people dying. In fact, sometimes these are the very facts that my detractors use to support what I hear as the most frequent defense of war:

Daniel, it's not as if I like war, of course not, but the reality is, war is necessary.

This is generally said in a very defensive manner. Ironically, others apparently interpret my advocacy for peace as a threatening attack. Although there is irony given the terms, I certainly understand that my assertion does call into question the morality of others' actions, and thus, it does in fact threaten their masquerade of presenting that which is wrong as being right.

The inherent inconsistency of arguing that war is justified by its necessity can clearly be seen by specifying the actions of the individuals involved. If it is accepted that individuals initiating physical violence against other individuals is wrong (e.g. men hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings is wrong), how then can it be right to enact behavior that also involves individuals initiating physical violence against other individuals (e.g. men and women dropping explosives out of airplanes is right)?

What have the accomplices to the 9/11 attacks repeatedly stated as their purpose? In his remarks directed to the general citizenry of America, Osama bin Laden, the man recognized by those in the United States government as the leader of the hijackings, gives his answer.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.

"To the American people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another Manhattan," he said. "I tell you: Security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html)

This form of argument sounds strikingly familiar, does it not? Osama bin Laden has publicly claimed that the deaths caused by his compatriots was in retaliation for the deaths that members of the U.S. and Israeli governments have caused. Going further still, bin Laden emphasizes that his main concern is for the security of other people that he feels are threatened by the individuals who identify themselves as the United States government.

Meanwhile, costumed individuals collectivized under the heading of the United States military have killed multiple times more people than died on 9/11, and all this has been done while stating that their actions are in retaliation for the deaths perpetrated by Osama's comrades. Like bin Laden himself, these people also claim that they are merely acting out of concern for the security of others whom they say they want to protect.

In this manner, both factions are caught in the paradox of trying to justify their initiation of violence by calling it preventative. The reality is that no matter how big the WMDs or how fearful people are for their "security," there is no such thing as preventative violence. Such an idea is as contradictory as preemptive rape. Ultimately, if initiating the use of force is morally wrong, then it is wrong for anyone, at anytime, in any place, and for any reason.

Once a person accepts that war is wrong, it will immediately become something to be stopped. This raises the natural question of how to end war. For one answer, I turn to Howard Zinn and his aptly titled book A Power Government's Cannot Suppress.

We must recognize that we cannot depend on the governments of the world to abolish war, because they and the economic interests they represent benefit from war. Therefore, we, the people of the world must take up the challenge. And although we do not command armies, we do not have great treasuries of wealth, there is one crucial fact that gives us enormous power: the governments of the world cannot wage war without the participation of the people. Albert Einstein understood this simple fact. Horrified by the carnage of the First World War in which 10 million died in the battlefields of Europe, Einstein said: "Wars will stop when men refuse to fight."

That is our challenge, to bring the world to the point where men and women will refuse to fight, and governments will be helpless to wage war.

Is that utopian? Impossible? Only a dream?

Do people go to war because it is part of human nature? If so, then we might consider it impossible to do away with war. But there is no evidence, in biology, or psychology, or anthropology, of a natural instinct for war. If that were so, we would find a spontaneous rush to war by masses of people. What we find is something very different: we find that governments must make enormous efforts to mobilize populations for war. They must entice young people with promises of money, land, education, skills. Immigrants are lured with promises of green cards and citizenship. And if those enticements don't work, government must coerce. It must conscript young people, force them into military service, threaten them with prison if they do not comply.

Woodrow Wilson found a citizenry so reluctant to enter the First World War that he had to pummel the nation with propaganda and imprison dissenters in order to get the country to join the butchery going on in Europe.

The most powerful weapon of governments in raising armies is the weapon of propaganda, of ideology. It must persuade young people, and their families, that though they may die, though they may lose arms or legs, or become blind, that it is done for the common good, for a noble cause, for democracy, for liberty, for God, for the country.

The idea that we owe something to our country goes far back to Plato, who puts into the mouth of Socrates the idea that the citizen has an obligation to the state, that the state is to be revered more than your father and mother. He says: "In war, and in the court of justice, and everywhere, you must do whatever your state and your country tell you to do, or you must persuade them that their commands are unjust." There is no equality here: the citizen may use persuasion, no more. The state may use force.

This idea of obedience to the state is the essence of totalitarianism. And we find it not only in Mussolini's Italy, in Hitler's Germany, in Stalin's Soviet Union, but in so-called democratic countries, like the United States.

I accept Zinn's goal as my own, that is, bringing people to the point where they "will refuse to fight, and governments will be helpless to wage war." Every day that I remain in the military against my will, my situation serves to dispel the myth that the American military today is an "all volunteer force." I do not report for duty by choice; I do so under the threat of imprisonment. Also, despite the fact that I report for duty, I refuse to fight. The reality is that even if every individual who currently works for any military showed up tomorrow for work but refused to fight, that would be the end of war and not a drop of blood would be shed.

Chances are that you are not considered a member of any military. Nevertheless, without your support and the support of those like you, the people who call themselves government would be impotent to continue the destruction that is war. I have taken my stand against an immoral act that is cloaked in the vagaries of patriotism, honor, courage, duty, and, the rationale most referenced to me, "necessity." The question is now, what will you do?

Day 57 - Double-Down

2009-06-29T23:59:00.001-05:00

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

2009-06-26T23:36:00.002-05:00

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

2009-06-24T23:59:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-22T16:40:00.035-05:00

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

2009-06-18T13:47:00.014-05:00

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

2009-06-16T12:50:00.011-05:00

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?

2009-06-12T23:59:00.003-05:00

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

2009-06-11T23:59:00.001-05:00

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 . . .

2009-06-10T19:15:00.009-05:00

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

2009-06-05T23:59:00.005-05:00

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:

Who are you?
How do you know me?
If you know, how were my beliefs different before I joined the Navy, or even within the first two years of my enlistment?
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?

2009-06-04T23:59:00.011-05:00

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

2009-06-03T11:59:00.006-05:00

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

2009-06-02T22:13:00.014-05:00

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?

2009-06-01T23:27:00.004-05:00

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.

Days 25-28 - Unexpected Validation

2009-05-30T11:02:00.011-05:00

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.

Day 24 - Ordered not to die . . . at least by suicide

2009-05-28T23:59:00.002-05:00

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:

"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:

"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."

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:

"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?

Day 23 - Sir! No Sir!

2009-05-27T23:59:00.002-05:00

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.

Day 22 - Updated Further Replies to "Obedience as Virtue?"

2009-05-26T19:16:00.008-05:00

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.

Day 22 - Further Replies to "Obedience As Virtue?"

2009-05-26T05:44:00.005-05:00

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.

Days 20 & 21 - One Answer to "Obedience as Virtue"

2009-05-24T05:45:00.006-05:00

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."

Day 19 - Obedience as Virtue?

2009-05-22T23:59:00.016-05:00

"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.

"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.

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."

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"?

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."

Day 18 - Diagnosis Free

2009-05-21T23:59:00.010-05:00

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:

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.

Day 17 - "The Fate of the Detainees"

2009-05-20T23:59:00.014-05:00

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:

"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?

Day 16 - Service or Slavery?

2009-05-19T23:59:00.001-05:00

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.

“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?

Day 15 - SECDEF on Safety

2009-05-18T23:59:00.005-05:00

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

Days 13 & 14 - A Presidential Quote

2009-05-17T19:53:00.006-05:00

"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.

Day 12 - I've Been Linked

2009-05-15T18:03:00.005-05:00

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.

Day 11 - A How-To Guide

2009-05-14T19:29:00.014-05:00

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:

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.

That said, after a member has submitted a request, (mine is viewable here) she or he will undergo two interviews, one with a Chaplain and another with a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. About these interviews:

"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:

"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."

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.

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."

Day 10 - A Visual Explanation

2009-05-13T19:04:00.005-05:00

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.

Behind the Wire: An Insider's Reflections on Gitmo

2009-05-12T23:59:00.003-05:00

*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.

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

2009-05-12T23:54:00.007-05:00

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.

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

2009-05-12T06:18:00.007-05:00

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:

"(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?

Days 6 & 7 - Online Application

2009-05-10T21:31:00.009-05:00

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.

Day 5 - Memorandum for the Record

2009-05-08T23:28:00.009-05:00

Only minutes before ending an otherwise uneventful workday, my Chief approached me with a typed page in hand. The page read as follows:

06 May 2009

Memorandum for the Record

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.

Day 4 - Man of the Cloth

2009-05-07T18:35:00.013-05:00

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:

"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.

Day 3 - Review

2009-05-06T19:48:00.010-05:00

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:

To: Executive Officer
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

Unfortunately, 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."

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 2 - Application Submitted

2009-05-05T21:53:00.008-05:00

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.

For the Convenience of the Government

"Guantanamo Guard Reunited with Ex-Inmate"

Most Comprehensive Interview to Date

*The linked mp3 files exclude commercials.

Daniel Lakemacher - 11/07/2009: Hr. 2

Daniel Lakemacher - 11/07/2009: Hr. 3

From Thought to Action

War is an Effect of Government

Conformity & Compliance vs. Conscience & Consistency

Radio Interview

Day 131 - The End of My Military Enslavement

Days 124-129 - I've Seen It in Writing

123 Days Later . . . A Verbal Answer Is Given

Days 113-119 - Adding Insult to Injury

Days 108-112 - Interview Responses

Days 106-107 - Meet My Interviewer (Video)

Days 99-105 - In the Absence of Government

Days 92-98 - A Website With a Purpose

Days 85-91 - State-Sponsored Terrorism

Days 77-84 - Honesty vs. Morality

Days 71-76 - A Misunderstanding of Contract

Days 67-70 - What's In a Contract?

Days 65 & 66 - Words & Flags

Days 60-64 - My Rebuttal

Days 58-59 - The Fallacy of Preemptive Violence

Day 57 - Double-Down

Days 53-56 - IO Report Received

Days 51-52 - The End

Day 50 - A Light in the Darkness

Days 46-49 - Heather Speaks Out

Days 42-46 - Leave! And the Tyrant

Days 40 & 41 - Isn't it obvious?

Day 39 - Illness and XO's Orders

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

Days 33-35 - An Appeal for Reader Action

Day 32 - Consent, what consent?

Day 31 - Listen Closely

Day 30 - The Nature of Government

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

Days 25-28 - Unexpected Validation

Day 24 - Ordered not to die . . . at least by suicide

Day 23 - Sir! No Sir!

Day 22 - *Updated* Further Replies to "Obedience as Virtue?"

Day 22 - Further Replies to "Obedience As Virtue?"

Days 20 & 21 - One Answer to "Obedience as Virtue"

Day 19 - Obedience as Virtue?

Day 18 - Diagnosis Free

Day 17 - "The Fate of the Detainees"

Day 16 - Service or Slavery?

Day 15 - SECDEF on Safety

Days 13 & 14 - A Presidential Quote

Day 12 - I've Been Linked

Day 11 - A How-To Guide

Day 10 - A Visual Explanation

Behind the Wire: An Insider's Reflections on Gitmo

Day 9 - Reflections on GTMO

Day 8 - Question

Days 6 & 7 - Online Application

Day 5 - Memorandum for the Record

Day 4 - Man of the Cloth

Day 3 - Review

Day 2 - Application Submitted

Day 22 - Updated Further Replies to "Obedience as Virtue?"