Wednesday, January 13, 2010
"Guantanamo Guard Reunited with Ex-Inmate"
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
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.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
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.
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 . . .
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Days 108-112 - Interview Responses
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.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Days 85-91 - State-Sponsored Terrorism
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Days 36-38 - Hear ye, hear ye . . .
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.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Day 9 - Reflections on GTMO
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
"(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?
