Day 50 - A Light in the Darkness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Days 40 & 41 - Isn't it obvious?

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

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

and,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was met with the immediate follow-up:

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

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

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

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

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

Day 39 - Illness and XO's Orders

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me: Oh, okay

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

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

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

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

IO: Nope that was the only concern.

Me: All names will be removed.

IO: Right. Perfect.

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

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

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

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


R, (abbreviated title)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Days 33-35 - An Appeal for Reader Action

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

The following information was also included in the message:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please send email to warisimmoral@gmail.com

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