"Guantanamo Guard Reunited with Ex-Inmate"

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

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

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. 3

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.

Radio Interview

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 . . .

Days 85-91 - State-Sponsored Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

Day 19 - Obedience as Virtue?

"A child who grows up in an environment where only obedience is rewarded with survival gets very black and white about authority."

I recently heard this said by Paul Gibbons on the Complete Liberty Podcast - Episode 66, and it resonated with me deeply. I say this not because of any unique parenting to which I was subjected, but as a result of the fact that my experience of having obedience so readily instilled in me would be considered not just normal but praiseworthy in our culture. Arguably, it is this principle of following authority that has been more thoroughly ingrained in me than any other.

Whether it was obedience to God, parents, church, state, teachers, adults, person's wearing special clothing, or any number of the other seemingly endless categories to which I had to gratefully submit, the issue was not to whom you were being obedient but that you were obeying. The highest compliment was, "You're such an obedient little boy," not "You consistently discern what's right and act accordingly."

Think for yourself; did your very first lesson involve learning that disobedience would result in physical pain? I would venture that, for most of us, one of the earliest concepts we came to comprehend was that disobedience = physical beating. Don't put the toy down when told, beating. Don't pick the toy up and put it away when told, beating. And my personal favorite for guaranteeing that you won't obey: don't sit quietly without moving, beating. I'm guessing that many of us literally had insult added to injury when, as we got older, we not only were beaten, but first it was explained to us that not only were we deserving of a beating given our lack of obedience, but the physical pain that was to be inflicted on us against our will was for our own good. This of course meant that while we gingerly avoided sitting down, we should feel a humble gratitude toward whatever individual had so generously chosen to come to our aide in this way.

Of course, I do realize that there is a term more generally accepted for this type of action, but like many words, it serves only to legitimize what would otherwise cause significant dissonance between action and stated belief. The word in question is spanking, but seeing as I've never heard of a case of domestic abuse where a spouse was accused of spanking another person as a result of disobedience, I chose to use the term that is applied in the latter situations, since in these cases, the same action is rightfully portrayed in an unfavorable light.

Seeing as my parents and hopefully many who know them will likely read this post, I wish to be explicit that although I remember being the recipient of corporal punishment at their hands, it was done to no greater degree or in any greater frequency than would be accepted as normal and appropriate in our culture. My point is not to draw attention to my parents, whom I love and respect deeply for all that they've given me. Instead, I wish to speculate that the level of unquestioning obedience modeled by the workers in places like GTMO isn't surprising given the primal level on which such a severe physical and emotional conditioning toward obedience has been ingrained.

Thankfully, the incredible influence that stems from a human desire to be obedient is not one that has gone unstudied. In his landmark social psychology experiment, Stanly Milgram "measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience." Although Milgram's focus certainly wasn't on determining the causal factors of such obedience, to my knowledge, there exists no more clear and indisputable evidence of just how far people will go in order to obey.

Through his experiment, Milgram unexpectedly made public the shocking reality that most people need no more incentive than that of obedience to cause extreme physical pain to the point of presumed unconsciousness in someone else. In his study, the incentive to obey by presumably giving high voltage electrical shocks to another human being was provided by nothing more than a stranger in a lab coat who authoritatively told the unwitting test subjects that "the experiment requires that you go on."

At a mere 11 pages in length, Milgram's summary article, The Perils of Obedience(pdf), is undoubtedly one of the most priceless modern contributions toward understanding the nature of human social interaction. Although I can't offer a high enough recommendation for reading the article in it's entirety, I know my own busy schedule, and so I'll quote paragraphs 111-112.

"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 9 - Reflections on GTMO

I have no word on the progress of my request.

The good news is that I believe that today's post offers my best explanation of what I believe to be true regarding the question of the justification of both my personal actions, and the overall military operation, at the Detention Center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

_________________________

After having spent six months deployed as a member of the medical team assigned to the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I can easily say that GTMO is the most hate-filled place I have ever experienced. The animosity I felt in the "camps" on a daily basis was almost palpable, and it often required a very conscious effort not to escalate the hostility. Almost any other place in the world where sworn enemies are in such close proximity, the aggression leads to death, whereas, in GTMO the hatred just festers.

As I look back more than a year later, I believe it was predominantly these extreme emotional factors that prevented me from being able to more objectively question the justification for GTMO while I was still there. Although it lacks any reference to the complexity of the issues, perhaps the most applicable metaphor is that I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Or in this case, I wasn’t thinking about why all those men were “detained”, when the man in the cage in front of me was screaming obscenities and pounding on the wall.

Honestly, I cannot imagine what the outcome would have been if my beliefs had changed while I remained on the island. How could I have coped with the motto, “honor bound to defend freedom,” while I daily worked in support of restricting others’ liberty? Thankfully, in coming home, the intermittently reinforced pattern of adrenaline, heightened emotions, and hyper-vigilance subsided. Personally, I believe it was only after this that I could begin to question the meaning of all that I saw and experienced.

As I suspect is typical of any shift in a life-long and emotionally charged belief, the largest obstacle for me to overcome was my own natural instinct to be personally defensive instead of objectively analytical. To this end, I think my best defense was simply not talking about my experience unless prompted by others. Thankfully, given all the news stories, op-ed pieces, and many people's eagerness to get on their own personal soapboxes in conversation, there was little possibility of avoiding the topic of what was happening in Guantanamo Bay.

As a result of these promptings, on multiple occasions I passionately and sometimes heatedly defended the fact that I hadn't tortured anybody. Furthermore, when pressed, I expressed how I thought it very unjust that I had to serve at the beck and call of "detainees". My talking points on this specific aspect of GTMO emphasized the audacity of "detainee" complaints. After all, I had to bring them medication on their whim and not make noise during their "Call to Prayer". When home, I expressed my outrage at having felt forced to cater to the very "detainees" that I was taught to believe were the enemy who would stop at nothing short of the annihilation of my entire culture. Throughout these conversations, I gave innumerable illustrations of other matters that I felt were unjustified in favor of the “detainees”. One such example was that the “detainees” had complained that the coffee was cold by the time it arrived from the galley. To my chagrin, the guards were given a coffee machine in the camp from which to directly dispense coffee for the “detainees”.

There is likely no better testimony of the power and influence of the propaganda involved, than that it was the ingratitude of the “detainees” that so infuriated me. In stark contrast, I can now at least theoretically understand how infinitely inconsequential such matters as coffee and Advil are in comparison to the isolation the “detainees” experience everyday. What value are all the medicines in the world if you live in a concrete cell, thousands of miles away from where you were abducted by people of a different race, who came to your country armed with weapons capable of true mass destruction?

Although this is an extremely poignant question, for months I remained too emotionally attached to my personal experiences to even begin to formulate it, let alone entertain it as valid. Instead, I clung to my adamant defense of my role in GTMO, even after I accepted that war is immoral. To me, the reality was that I had personally participated in confining others against their will, and I knew that if I were to admit to myself that I had not done this in support of a just cause, there would be a high price to pay within my conscience. Since coming to that realization, I have repeatedly tried to dispel such doubts by telling myself that even if war is immoral, surely the confinement of criminals doesn’t violate the concept of liberty I have come to cherish.

Nevertheless, my growing skepticism of government, and my critical thinking about GTMO, has led me to the following three questions that I think should be used to decide the issue once and for all.

1. Are the "detainees" in GTMO, or anywhere else for that matter, guilty of crimes that merit the past and continuing restriction of their liberty?

2. Are there objective grounds upon which the guilt referenced in the first question has been established? If not, is evidence to this end being sought, and is it just to restrict their liberty whilst the question of their guilt remains unanswered? The latter question references the commonly recognized feature of the American judicial system that the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Does such a principle apply to all humanity, or should it only apply for the citizens of a country in which the government enumerates it, as in the United States?

3. The final question is much more subjective, and I don't believe it has the practical application value that the previous questions offer; however, I believe it is no less powerful or important to understanding the issue. What would you do if tens of thousands of people, armed with deadly force, and from a completely different culture than yourself, suddenly moved within miles of where you lived, worked, and raised your children?

Having established these three questions as my standard, I admit that I do not have, nor am I aware of anyone having, all the information necessary to determine the guilt or innocence of each detained person. Therefore, I honestly confess that I have no basis on which to claim justification for my personal actions in continuing the confinement of fellow human beings in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

If you have been interested enough to read this far, I would greatly appreciate your feedback as this is a particularly meaningful post to me. Do you agree with my conclusion? Do you have questions about anything that I referenced? What do you think of the overall military operation in GTMO? What do you think of my personal involvement? Please don't hesitate to leave a comment or to email me by clicking here.

If you haven't read it, my official application to request discharge is linked here.

Day 8 - Question

As is not altogether unexpected, I have no progress to report as regards my request, and in fact I didn't even have a single interaction with either of the Chiefs or anyone else directly involved in the process. That said, I still wanted to share what had me so preoccupied as to not actually make this post last night. In responding to an email that I had sent out to a number of friends and family alerting them of my website, and my request to be discharged, one person wrote back and made the following statement:

"(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?