Evidence of My Sincerity

2009-06-06T12:58:00.000-07:00

Linked below by relationship, and alphabetically by last name in the right side-panel, is a list of individuals who have written letters or sworn statements that testify of why they are convinced that my belief in the immorality of war is "honest, sincere, and deeply held."

Family:

Wife - Heather J. Lakemacher
Brother - Matthew J. Lakemacher
Sister-in-law - Sarah E. Marsh
Brother-in-law - Noah M. Marsh
Father-in-law - Jim Otten

Friends:

Confidant - Jay D. Marsh
Friend Since 2nd Grade - Christina Dame
Friend - Nathaniel Dame
Dean of Shimer College - David Shiner

Sailors/Soldiers:

Blog Followers

Please don't hesitate to comment at these links, email me with questions, or write your own statement on my behalf.

Sincerely,

Daniel J. Lakemacher

Sarah E. Marsh

2009-06-06T11:59:00.000-07:00

I, Sarah Elizabeth Marsh, first met Daniel J. Lakemacher at the Evangelical Free Church of Crystal Lake youth group when I was in eighth grade and he was a senior in high school. Dan was a charismatic outgoing young man who was a respected and involved student leader in the group. Over the next several years he dated and married my older sister, thus my contact, interactions, and friendship with him grew and have continued to this day.

From my interactions with Dan he impresses me as someone who is deeply introspective and actively strives to make his personal beliefs and his life actions congruent. Early in my friendship with Dan he taught several Sunday-school lessons in the youth group we both belonged to. One such lesson was paralleling the drive and devotion needed to excel at sports and the drive and devotion that should be put into Christian faith. In that lesson Dan told the story, which exemplifies his life, about wanting to become the best ping-pong player and spending hours practicing by himself and with others in order to hone his skills. While Dan's beliefs in God and Christianity have changed drastically since that lesson roughly a decade ago, the enthusiasm, determination, and congruency with which he approaches life has not.

When Dan first enlisted in the military the sincerity of his belief in the "War on Terror" was evident. He proudly announced his decision to friends and family, avidly read books written by soldiers and military experts, embarked on a self-motivated fitness routine, pursued SEAL testing, and discussed ideas of staying in the military for his career. Dan seemed physically, psychologically, and emotionally content and happy with life in the military. When he deployed to Guantanamo Bay we kept in touch through periodic e-mails and instant messaging, and it was during this time that I distinctly saw his ideas and beliefs beginning to change. He began questioning not only his role in the military but also the military and government's role in society and the world at large.

Several months ago when Dan first explicitly discussed his intention to file for status as a conscientious objector with me, it came as no surprise. Just as with other major paradigm shifts in his life Dan had been discussing, reading, and reflecting on his new beliefs for some time. Being a man of integrity and honesty I knew that Dan must would change his actions to coincide with his beliefs, despite the fact that filing for conscientious objector status would, and has, drawn harsh criticism from family members and friends who he cares about deeply.

Dan and I disagree, to an extent, on issues of war and God; but, their is no doubt in my mind that Dan sincerely and honestly believes war is immoral and that being a part of the military means he is supporting an institution he vehemently believes to be immoral and wrong. Due to Dan's deeply held belief in the immorality of war I believe it is in his best interest emotionally and psychologically to gain status as a conscientious objector.

Sincerely,

Sarah Marsh

David Shiner

2009-06-06T11:43:00.000-07:00

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is David Shiner. I am writing in support of Daniel Lakemacher’s request for conscientious objector (CO) status.

I met Dan shortly after his wife Heather enrolled at Shimer College, where I have taught for the past 33 years and currently serve as Dean of the College. Dan and I saw each other only intermittently during Heather’s years at Shimer. I have come to know him somewhat better since he was redeployed to the local area.

To the extent that I can claim to know Dan, I have found his character to be of a very high order. He is sincere in his principles, and he lives a principled life. This was as true of his earlier incarnation as an evangelical Christian as of his new life as a secular libertarian. He is not the sort of person who believes or acts in a halfhearted manner. Had he not recently discovered an alternative philosophy that included commitment to non-violence, he would not have been transformed in the ways in which he has been; merely having had doubts about aspects of his military experience would not have sufficed for him to change his views so fundamentally or to apply for CO status.

Dan’s principles are rooted in dedication to the strictures of conscience properly understood. That is evident in the passage in his application for CO status in which he states, “I would be lying if I did not acknowledge a fear of being characterized as unpatriotic, un-American, or worst of all, a coward. Despite this, I believe the far graver mistake would be to violate my conscience. In summary, the strength of my moral convictions has finally reached the point of outweighing any possible social consequences among family, friends, and coworkers.” That passage is typical of the way Dan thinks, and of the way he lives his life. Devout Christians are well aware that following in Christ’s footsteps may well result in negative social consequences. Although Dan no longer views himself as a Christian, his dedication to living out and accepting the consequences of his convictions remains as strong as ever. I do not espouse the same principles as Dan, but I am fully persuaded as to the sincerity and depth of his beliefs.

I hope that you will see fit to grant Daniel Lakemacher’s request for CO status. If you would like to contact me, feel free to do so at the email address or phone number below.

Sincerely,

David Shiner, PhD
Dean of the College
Shimer College

Charles A. Grimmett

2009-06-06T02:03:00.000-07:00

1) I am Charles A. Grimmett, a student at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, MI.

2) I have never met Daniel J. Lakemacher, and I have no personal connections to him. I simply read the material he wrote on his website, including his application, and I felt it necessary to write this short note, as I believe his is sincere in his convictions.

3) I am convinced that Daniel J. Lakemacher's belief in the immorality of war is "honest, sincere, and deeply held," because of the immense time, thought, and effort he has put into this application, as well as the courage he has for even attempting to apply for this classification. I have family and friends in the United States military, including the Navy, and I know that matters like this are not taken lightly.

Just by filing to be classified as a Conscious Objector, Daniel Lakemacher has decided to uphold his beliefs in the face of struggles that may come for the rest of his life. In this country, being against war is not a popular thing, despite how the media might portray it. A person who discloses that he is against war faces humiliation, rejection, and alienation from his family and peers, as well as being labeled unpatriotic, un-American, and even a terrorist in some cases.

Not only is Daniel Lakemacher doing what he believes is right in the face of this, but he is taking it a step farther: he is changing his profession and his way of life for his beliefs. Just the thought of ending your career and changing your entire lifestyle is itself enough of a reason for most people to stay in the military, even if their beliefs change. Daniel Lakemacher, however, has stronger beliefs than most objectors. He is willing to change nearly everything he has known for the last several years on account of them, and risk social humiliation and alienation on account of them. Even since he applied a little over 30 days ago, he has faced struggles--in this case with his commanding officers. His deep-seated belief in the immorality of war has kept him going, however, despite these struggles.

Though I do not know him, I believe Daniel J. Lakemacher's belief in the immorality of war is "honest, sincere, and deeply held" on account of the seemingly insurmountable struggles he is willing to face because of it, and the immense amount of time he has put into thinking and writing about these beliefs.

C.A. Grimmett - Read C.A. Grimmett's blog

Matthew J. Lakemacher

2009-06-05T23:59:00.000-07:00

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of Daniel Lakemacher, to provide evidence in support of his filing for conscientious objector status from the United States Navy. I am Daniel’s older brother (one of two) and have known him for all of his life. I lived with him for his first 18 years and have remained a close friend of his since we moved out of our parents’ home some years ago. At one time, Daniel and I were both active in the same church and youth group and had a chance to work together in that context for several years as well.

Based upon these experiences and how well I know Daniel, I can unequivocally say that his views on the immorality of war are honest, sincere, and deeply held. I believe that Daniel genuinely holds to his anti-war beliefs and thus feels that his position in the military is a violation of his conscience. I can also attest to the fact that Daniel’s views on the morality of warfare in general and on the United States military’s use of force in particular have changed 180 degrees since he first enlisted in the Navy. Daniel believed at one time that warfare could be justified in certain cases and that the United States Government was right to use violence to force its will on both foreign and domestic policy. Clearly he no longer holds to these tenants and his personal beliefs have changed since he signed his contract with the United States Navy. I have seen evidence of these changes in several conversations I have had with Daniel and by reading his writings of the past several months.

It is for these reasons that I believe the classification of Daniel as a conscientious objector is justified and that the weight of evidence supports the sincerity of his application.

Sincerely,

Matthew J. Lakemacher

Christina Dame

2009-06-05T19:30:00.000-07:00

My name is Christina Dame, I am a lifelong friend of Daniel Lakemacher. It is my sincere belief that Daniel is an extremely intelligent man lead by his deep convictions and that his attitudes and beliefs concerning war and the United States Military have changed significantly since he enlisted.

Christina Dame

Jim Otten

2009-06-05T19:11:00.000-07:00

To whom it may concern,

I am writing on behalf of my son-in-law, Daniel J. Lakemacher, requesting that you grant his request for separation from the United States Navy as a Conscientious Objector.

I have known Dan since he began dating my daughter about 10 years ago. He has always been a well-read, articulate and thoughtful man. He takes responsibility seriously. Dan did not take his decision to enter the Navy lightly in 2005. Neither has he taken lightly the decision to file for Conscientious Objector status.

So what has changed? I believe Dan’s heart has changed about the morality of his role in the Navy, in response to events that have unfolded since his induction in the Navy 4 years ago.

Although I disagree with the general statement that “all war is immoral” (I believe that America was right to go to war in World War II and in the first Gulf War in 1991), the behavior of our prior and current commanders-in-chief give pause as to what we are “fighting for”… and why.

Our prior commander-in-chief stated that the current war in Iraq was necessary because the enemy possessed “weapons of mass destruction”. No such weapons were ever found and frequent news reports suggest that it may have been known to the commander before the war commenced that such weapons did not exist. Our current commander-in-chief made the cessation of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first 16 months of his Presidency one of the cornerstones of his presidential campaign. Yet 5 months into his Presidency, it is becoming increasingly apparent that our current commander-in-chief does not have… and likely never had… a workable plan to fulfill that campaign promise. Hence, there appears to be a significant morality and integrity gap surrounding each of our last two commanders-in-chief.

There also is the issue of “waterboarding”. One of our greatest Navy heroes, Senator John McCain of Arizona, has described the process as torture. Our military has admitted using this process against “detainees”.

As I consider the events of the last few paragraphs, it is easy for me to understand how a seaman… any seaman… could question the integrity and morality of the military organization of which they are a part. On top of these issues, Dan spent 7 months at Guantanamo, actually interacting with the detainees. Although we have discussed Guantanamo, I don’t think anyone who has not been there can fully understand the perspective and experience of one who has served there.

As I reflect upon the prior paragraphs, it is easy for me to understand how my son-in-law’s feelings about being a part of the Navy have changed during the past 4 years. I believe his moral convictions are honest and sincere, have been thoroughly contemplated, and have changed significantly since his induction. I request that you grant Daniel J. Lakemacher’s request for separation from the United States Navy as a Conscientious Objector.

Please contact me at ________ if you have further questions.

With respect toward all,

Jim Otten

Nathaniel Dame

2009-06-05T18:20:00.000-07:00

To Whom it May Concern,

Through several in-depth and long conversations, and after reading many of Daniel's blog posts, I firmly believe that Daniel Lakemacher's belief in the immorality of war is very sincere and honest, and it has become a deep part of his world view. Daniel has even taken additional steps, particularly through the blog, to share his beliefs with others and engage a greater community in the conversation over the immorality of war. My own beliefs and views have been challenged by his approach.

I know Daniel through my wife, who has been friends with Daniel since 2nd grade. Daniel and I have met several times and talked in depth about these issues primarily via email.

Personally, I'm not quite sure exactly where I stand on the issue of war. I don't agree with Daniel completely, as I do believe there will always be a need to defend freedom and liberty, but he does bring up some interesting points.

If you need anything else, feel free to contact me directly.

Thank you,

Nathaniel Dame

Check out his website Called to YM

Delila Nonymous

2009-06-05T15:17:00.000-07:00

Navy Personnel Command
5720 Integrity Drive
Millington, TN 38055

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a student of Government at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, and an avid follower of Daniel Lakemacher’s blog, “For the Convenience of the Government”. I happened upon his blog after my boyfriend resigned his position as a Warrant Officer in the Army. Having very limited knowledge of military culture, I was curious how enlisted personnel accomplished the equivalent of a resignation, given the contractual nature of their obligation to the military.

After having read a military recruitment website, I began looking for clarification as to what constituted “the convenience of the government”, which is what led me to Daniel’s website. He offers a very cogent argument for his ideological belief that war is immoral, indicative of his sincere conviction that he has become ill-suited for any position within the military.

I can trust the opinion of a Navy chaplain that Daniel’s decision is his own, and clearly authentic. I am convinced by the evaluation of a Navy psychologist that his request to be classified as a conscientious objector is sincere. While the independent assessments of various Navy personnel as to the depth of authenticity of Daniel’s claims are compelling, I also value my personal judgment.

While many with deeply held values often silently acquiesce to societal pressure, leadership or the difficulty which would present itself by being contrary, Daniel has chosen to make his voice count. Those without a specific and obvious belief in the moral correctness of their opinion do not develop websites, report daily and enumerate their principles by engaging in healthy, constructive debate. These are the actions of someone who, using his intellect and passionate belief in his personal values, has utilized his position and experience to enlighten and energize others.

It is necessary for inter-governmental organizations to respect the convictions, diversity and personal constitutions of their constituents, being they in line with, “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” While it is my personal belief that the necessity of a military cannot be denied, it is also my contention that it should be left to the individual to decide whether or not to be part of such an institution, and to freely change one’s mind.

Choice and self-determination are core principles of the democratic process that frame America’s history and character. I submit that Daniel’s clear and deeply held beliefs are both a product and a facet of what makes this country a bastion of freedom.

Respectfully,

Delila Nonymous - Read Delila's Blog

Name Withheld

2009-06-05T14:33:00.000-07:00

From: Name withheld, USN, XXX-XX-XXXX
To: Navy Personnel Command
Via: Commanding Officer, Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes, Illinois

Subj: HM2 DANIEL LAKEMACHER’S CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR STATUS

Ref: (a) MILPERSMAN 1900-020

1. A description of my view of HM2’s beliefs as they pertain to applying for conscientious objector status:

a. Several years ago Petty Officer Lakemacher approached me asking for information and advice in regards to him attempting to attend and make it through BUD/S. I have known him for most of my life so logically I was the person he’d ask. As with most things, HM2’s plans were thought out and my counsel was mostly in the areas of how to better train and to dispel some commonly held misconceptions about our training. Throughout those months of emails and phone calls I was looking for signs of intense motivation because, frankly, I didn’t want him to waste his time if I could see a lack of the necessary enthusiasm. I felt that he had, at that point, the requisite amount needed to make a good attempt.

b. After HM2 joined the Navy in 2005, we kept in touch from time to time. It was several months after his joining that he informed me of his change in plans as far as him not going to BUD/S. I want to emphasize here that his reasons, as I read them, were not due to a shift in philosophy, rather a simple career path shift.

c. Our correspondence over the next few years was sporadic for the most part, simple congenialities. Several months ago, however, he informed me of his plans to file a conscientious objector package. I was initially surprised, but upon more questioning and his explaining I could see how his personal philosophy had changed. Enough so, that his service was incompatible with his beliefs.

d. Personally, I do not agree with quite a few of his views. E.g. I believe in the Christian God, I feel there are just wars and I actually enjoy fighting them. But simply because I disagree with his philosophy doesn’t make them less valid. In my view, and as the MILPERSMAN reads, Petty Officer Lakemacher does meet the qualifications for this status. His views are solid, well thought out and counter to any service in our fighting forces. This makes him fully eligible to receive conscientious objector status.

2. My contact information, if the investigating officer or Commanding Officer wishes to question me further.

Withheld for security reasons

Very respectfully,

Name withheld

Michelle L. Hostetler

2009-06-05T14:14:00.000-07:00

To Whomever it May Concern:

Greetings, I am HM3 Michelle Hostetler. I have worked in Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes since June 2006 as a psychiatric technician in the Recruit Evaluation Unit and also in its satellite clinic, The Psycho-educational Program currently located in Ship 5-Recruit Separation Barracks. I have also completed two 6-month tours at Joint Task Force, Joint Medical Group; Behavioral Unit located the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The dates of those two tours were from September 2006-March 2007 and April 2008-November 2008.

I have known HM2 Daniel Lakemacher since February 2006 while attending Neuropsychiatric technician “C” school at the Naval School of Health Sciences, Portsmouth, Virginia. Right from the beginning HM2 Lakemacher, then HN Lakemacher seemed different from the rest of us. He appeared to be more reserved, extremely intelligent, and more assertive in comparison to the rest of our peer group. I did not know much about him then, but the impression he made on me was profound. We worked side-by-side before he rose above me and my fellow corpsman as an exemplary Petty Officer known for his tremendous work ethic. Eventually he became our Work Center Supervisor, due to his innate ability to treat others with respect and compassion, and his ability to get the job done right the first time.

Having expierenced working at the Detention Facility in Guantanamo Bay for myself, on two separate Individual Augmentations, I say with a heavy heart that these experiences do not leave a person unchanged. HM2 Lakemacher is correct when he speaks of the level of hate that exists down there, the service members towards the detainees, the detainees towards the service members. While I still have mixed emotions about the role I played while at the Behavioral Health Unit, I am empathetic to the solution and closure that HM2 Lakemacher is seeking in filing for “Conscientious Objector”.

Our founding fathers built our nation on the principle of “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Today’s American military is comprised of an all volunteer force. Please consider granting HM2 Lakemacher’s request to be a “Conscientious objector” on the basis that his continued military service is in direct contradiction to his newly defined objection to war, so that he may pursue his very own meaning of these three “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Sincerely,

(signed)

HM3 Hostetler, Michelle, L.
USN/AD/####
Psychiatric Technician

Gene Basler

2009-06-05T13:54:00.000-07:00

To Whom It May Concern,

As an Honorably Discharged Veteran of the Regular Army, I am writing to express my support for servicemember Daniel Lakemacher's courageous decision to separate himself from any further armed service due to conscientious objection. This nation was founded on principles of freedom from coercion, and if my memory of history serves me, we actually fought a war or two based on the United States' objection to foreign navies conscripting American citizens into service. Any contract that either party cannot get out of is a violation of the Bill of Rights.

As far as the sincerity of Mr. Lakemacher's intentions: conscientious objection is not fun. There are no congratulations, only derision. The mere fact that Mr. Lakemacher is undergoing this guantlet should be proof enough of his sincerity.

I, and voting members of my family, wish the best to Mr. Lakemacher and his efforts. We conscientiously object alonside him. It is our love of our country, our love of our troops and our firm belief in the founding principle of "friendship to all; entangling alliances with none" which cause us to take this stand.

May the authorities at the Department of the Navy have the wisdom to place conscientious objection in its true patriotic context, and to realize that peace only comes through strength, and strength only exists in the absence of coercion.

Signed,

Gene Basler
Cypress Texas

Trevor Glick

2009-06-03T07:59:00.000-07:00

To whom this may concern,

I was one of the few sailors to serve with Daniel during boot camp and during corp school where we both underwent some hard times and some good times. Since my separation from the Navy I can attest to Daniel's change. He has been without a doubt one of the most straightforward and professional people I have served with and we are still friends today.

His change is not an unlikely change as most people that see the horrors of war can tell you that it is a travesty and it is horrific. The acts that are especially undertaken at GTMO can be a symbol of our barbaric deeds of the United States. Locking people away for years with no word to friends or family. How can this be morally sound with any human being?

While serving with Daniel he was one of the men who took initiative and wanted responsibility and if he did not ask for it, it certainly was thrust upon him. He is a good man and the fact that he has come to this conclusion of being a Conscientious Objector is not one that I could say I did not see coming. It really does take the acts of barbarians to turn people into barbarians and the fact that he is willing to not undertake the U.S's stance on enemies is one that is true to his character. Though they may be "enemies" in the U.S.A's eyes they are still people and deserve the right to be treated as such.

This is not a man to be broken and change for the sake of the country. He is one that will stand up for what he believes in and I can tell you that his beliefs are not to harm other humans. The simple truth that he is a corpsman can attest to that. We joined corps school to be an aid to those in need. Not to keep those imprisoned and confined and never to be heard of.

He truly is a genuine person with real ideals, and not those that were fed to him, but his own ideals that he knows to be naturally true. To keep this man in the navy serving as a denier of liberty is like taking the very air you breathe from your lungs. Who are we to keep people like this. No evidence, no trial, no justice. The military seriously needs to rethink its goals. Take the fat cats out of power who think they are doing the right thing. The right thing now is to grant this man his freedom from the clutches of tyranny and confinement. He would know better then any of us the horrors of war and what it means to truly believe in the justice and liberty of all humans. I salute you Daniel as a friend and supporter.

~Trevor Glick

Tim Richardson

2009-06-01T15:58:00.000-07:00

1. My name is Tim Richardson, I am an Enduring Freedom veteran, having served 2 tours of duty under its banner in different locations.

2. I have known Daniel Lakemacher his whole life, I have been friends with his older brother Matt since we were 2 years old.

3. I am convinced Daniel is sincere because I know him fairly well and therefore know he is sincere. Even though I personally do not agree that all war is immoral, I do agree that the Iraq War is immoral and furthermore that he is sincere in his vows because he has defended his positions well using what I thought was genuine and well-reasoned argumentation building upon solid subjective premises that led him to his controversial conclusion. So while some of his logic and reasoning can definitely be called into question, indeed should be, I do not at all question his sincerity in this matter.

I myself had considered being a conscientious objector in light of the Iraq War once, but decided I myself was not committed nor sincere enough to rise to such a high level that this status requires. However, reading over Daniel's myriad writings on the web on Facebook and his website, and knowing him for so long, I have concluded what any other reasonable person would: that he is, in fact, sincere.

Heather J. Lakemacher

2009-05-01T23:59:00.000-07:00

April 19, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in support of the request of my husband, HM2 Daniel J. Lakemacher, to be classified as a conscientious objector and to be discharged from the United States Navy on these grounds. I understand his beliefs about the immorality of war to be the result of deep and sustained reflection and to be rooted in the ethical standards by which he seeks to live his entire life. To provide an accurate picture of how these beliefs have arisen since he joined the military, I intend to describe how I first met Daniel and how our relationship has changed over the past twelve years.

Daniel and I met toward the end of eighth grade when his family began attending the evangelical Christian church that my family and I had attended since I was four years old. I don’t specifically remember our first few interactions, but I do remember that by the time he left for a mission trip to the Philippines the next summer, I was impressed enough with his character that I wrote him a letter while he was gone. During high school, Daniel and I became good friends, but we rarely just hung out together. Our friendship developed in the context of ministering to other people. We coached a children’s sports team that was sponsored by our church. We went with other students from our youth group to visit a local nursing home. We intentionally invited “fringe” members of the youth group to hang out with us and our friends. We took turns tutoring a friend’s little sister. We went on mission trips together. In short, we were both devoutly committed to living out the spiritual teachings of our church as best we knew how.

During this time, several aspects of Daniel’s personality and character particularly drew me to him. I liked his sense of humor, especially how he used it to put people at ease. I was struck by his immense concern for others around him. In particular, I had never met a boy who could so consistently make girls feel like they were safe with him. He demonstrated a level of respect for both older women and the girls who were his peers that was unparalleled in my experience. He was remarkably intelligent, and he exercised his intellect by studying theology in his free time. We could have extended conversations about the finer points of Calvinist theology, but he was always concerned about how the ideas that he was studying should impact his behavior. Most of all, I was impressed by how seriously he took his Christian faith and how it pervaded every aspect of his life.

After graduating from high school, we both enrolled in a Bible college with the intent of becoming involved in professional ministry. For him, that meant preparing for the pastorate, and for me, it meant probably becoming a teacher. During the spring of our freshman year, Daniel asked me to marry him, and I accepted without hesitation. I was nineteen; he was eighteen. Much to the chagrin of our parents, many of the people at our church, and our professors at school, we married less than a year later. Although we both felt that our marriage was God’s will for us, others had distinctly different opinions about the wisdom of our decision. Although in actuality, we had both had simmering doubts about aspects of our religious beliefs for almost two years, this conflict was the first obvious sign of the coming upheaval in our lives.

Over the next couple years, we both began to question the legitimacy of basing decisions upon “the will of God” when so many people claimed that justification for contradictory beliefs and actions. This became especially clear after our church was rocked by a sex abuse scandal. The ministers at the church had tried to cover it up by claiming that God had not wanted the issue to damage the church’s witness in the local community. We found it suspicious that God would sanction lying for the sake of such politically expedient ends as job preservation, but Daniel’s attempts to spearhead a call for the resignation of the staff members involved were vehemently opposed by the church’s professional leadership. He spent months working to get other lay leaders of the church to face the problems head on, but eventually he was run out of the church by a smear campaign that targeted him and the few others who had supported the victim’s family throughout the ordeal. We left the church disgusted by the behavior that we had witnessed, but even more disgusted by the realization that there was a sick sort of logic to the behavior and excuses that the church’s ministers had put forth.

By this time, Daniel had given up on the idea of becoming a pastor. We had been asked to leave the Bible college over our supposedly imprudent marriage, and we had been forced out of our church over his advocacy for a victim of sexual abuse. Although his faith in Christianity was badly shaken, it wasn’t completely destroyed. He began searching anew for God’s will in relation to his career, and he eventually decided to join the military. A variety of reasons played into this decision. He liked the prospect of adventure. He wanted a more physically active job than the one he had at the time. A friend of his from high school was frequently telling him about how cool his work as a SEAL was. He had a sense of patriotism that had become more pronounced since 9/11 and the entry of American troops into Iraq. Both of our families thought highly of military service. The college benefits would be helpful down the road. Most of all, though, Daniel felt that military service was highly compatible with what he understood his role to be as a godly man. He had read numerous books that praised a quasi-literal interpretation of the idea of being a warrior for God. He thought that fighting in defense of America was ultimately taking a stand in defense of his family and his God as well, so on July 19th, 2005, less than three years after we had gotten married, Daniel reported to RTC for boot camp.

The next two years held a lot of changes for us. Daniel completed boot camp and Corps School at Great Lakes before heading to Portsmouth for Psych Tech School. I got a new job and learned how to deal with being by myself for long stretches of time while he was gone for training. Once Daniel received permanent orders to Great Lakes, we bought a house, and I enrolled at a local college with the intent of finally finishing my degree. We had never really found another church where we felt comfortable, so during this time, we gradually stopped going altogether. We had begun talking more and more about how the Christian faith of our childhood didn’t make nearly as much sense anymore, but I still assumed that someday we would find a place where we could once again exercise a vibrant faith, both together as a couple and in community with others. That all changed after Daniel’s first deployment, though.

In July of 2007, Daniel left for a seven-month deployment to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Through IM, emails, and phone calls, we stayed in touch as best we could. I knew that he was spending most of his free time reading, but since most of my time outside of work was being spent on studying for school, I had no chance to read the growing list of books that he said I really ought to check out. I got a sense of what he was reading and thinking about from the snippets that he would read to me over the phone or the shorter articles that he would email me to read over my lunch break. The ideas of natural law and personal liberty were increasingly the topics of his focus, and items of faith were almost non-existent.

As the months wore on, another issue began to impress itself on me. Daniel was becoming more and more disturbed by his on-going experiences at Guantanamo Bay. He rarely told me any details about his nights at work, but after having been married for five years, I knew that there was only one reason that my normally talkative husband would fail to share details of his day with me – there was something wrong. In light of the less than ideal means of communication that we had available to us, I didn’t press the issue, but I was getting increasingly worried about how different he might be when he got home.

When Daniel finally came home in February of 2008, we immediately went on vacation to reconnect. It was during this week away from home that some of the changes that he had undergone while in Cuba began to manifest themselves. One night after dinner, we sat in our hotel room, and he described a litany of things about Christianity that just didn’t make sense to him any more. They weren’t little quirks of denominational practice, though. They were fundamental doctrines of the faith. Although he didn’t quite come out and say it, I realized that night that my devoutly Christian husband had become an atheist. However, at that point, I think that the beliefs that would come to replace his Christian faith were as much a mystery to him as they were to me.

Over the next several months, Daniel gradually shared more about what had been bothering him in Cuba. He was bothered by the contrast between how he was treated by some of his superiors and how he was expected to treat the detainees. He was bothered by the media’s portrayal of the conditions at Guantanamo. He was bothered by the government’s rationale for the detention camp. He was bothered by his association with a place that many people thought of as synonymous with torture. He was bothered by the level of hate that had emanated throughout the camp. In short, he couldn’t help but reflect on the actions on all sides that had created Guantanamo Bay, and he increasingly felt that he couldn’t condone the reasons for those actions.

To say that Daniel was disturbed by his experiences in Cuba is something of an understatement. Toward the end of June or the beginning of July, I remember noticing him laughing. It sounded so good. Why was it such a relief to hear him laugh, I wondered to myself, and then with a start, I realized why. I hadn’t heard him truly laugh since he had come home five months earlier.

Daniel did try to see a military psychiatrist at one point, but since he wasn’t exhibiting any signs of PTSD, it didn’t prove to be helpful. The doctor wasn’t especially interested in talking about possible ethical issues related to the forceful detention of foreign nationals, and since that was what was bothering him, Daniel didn’t make a follow-up appointment. Instead, he was left to sort out his thoughts on his own or with me.

In the year following his return from Cuba, Daniel gradually came to a greater ability to articulate what had struck him as so wrong during his time there. After having abandoned his faith in Christianity as incoherent, inconsistent, and ultimately illogical, he had come to hold natural law as the foundation for his ethical beliefs. As I understand it, the core of natural law is that individuals are naturally entitled to the preservation of their person, property, and liberty insofar as that preservation does not infringe on the equal liberty of others. Roughly, this belief equates to the maxim common to several world religions of, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.” Ultimately, Daniel came to the conclusion that war was morally incompatible with his new beliefs and that his level of distress over his experiences in Cuba was primarily rooted in his gut-level intuition of that fact even prior to his conscious ability to articulate it.

The ethics of natural law have replaced Daniel’s prior belief in Christianity in every demonstrable way that I can think of. Instead of studying the Bible and theological texts, he spends the majority of his time reading authors like John Locke, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Instead of spending time cultivating relationships where he might be able to persuade someone to accept Christ, he talks about the ideas of natural law with anyone seems open to considering them. Instead of considering how he might minister to others, he thinks about how to be involved with the advancement of liberty though financial support of non-profits, attendance at seminars and lectures, and ultimately his long-term career goals. In short, he is just as passionate about his belief in the ethical superiority of natural law as he was about Christianity when I first met him.

Although I have witnessed more closely than anyone the dramatic change of belief that Daniel has undergone in the last two years, I can honestly say that there are some things about him that have not changed. He is still incredibly passionate about what he believes to be right. He is still willing to take a stand for his beliefs even in the face of opposition. Most of all, he still seeks to be a man of integrity, that is, a man whose beliefs and actions are integrated into a consistent whole. It is because of this drive to live as he believes that Daniel has requested to be discharged from the remainder of his military service. I am confident that the beliefs that have led him to conclude that war is immoral are firm, fixed, and sincere. He is a conscientious objector to war, and I believe he ought to be discharged as such.

(signed)

Heather Lakemacher

*The above letter was signed and notarized on May 1, 2009.

Jay D. Marsh

2009-04-28T23:59:00.001-07:00

April 28, 2009

To Whom it May Concern:

Daniel J. Lakemacher requested that I write a letter outlining my relationship with him and my view on his past and current belief systems. His instructions to me were to honestly tell it the way I see him.

I first met Daniel Lakemacher as a youth sometime in 1999. My daughter Maggie and Dan’s future wife Heather went on a mission trip to Hungary together in June of 2000. I was aware of him during the next several years but did not get to know him until I began teaching college age students on Sunday mornings at the Evangelical Free Church of Crystal Lake, IL. Dan was a regular attendee of my class.

I loved challenging the young adults to think about what they believed and WHY they believed it. The topics discussed were usually controversial to stimulate serious thought and dialogue. Dan was always an active participant and extremely knowledgeable about the Bible. One of the topics, prompted by the first war in Iraq was the theory of “Just War”. I clearly remember Dan agreeing with the premise that God had divined that some wars were Just and there were many examples of it in the Bible.

During this time period there was no doubt that Dan was a believer in Christian Doctrine. He overtly expressed his faith in the God of the Bible and in Jesus Christ as his savior. He was an exemplary young man who was considered an excellent youth leader. He also attended Moody Bible Institute to deepen his faith and knowledge of Christianity while pursuing a college degree.

My son Noah’s wife Sarah and Dan’s wife Heather are sisters. Partly because of this family connection I have had the pleasure of meeting with Dan, one on one, for many years. Prior to his enlistment he and I would take long walks on a bike path near my house in Crystal Lake to discus (sic) life, the world, faith, politics and what does Dan do with his life. He is extremely engaging and always truthfully transparent with his thoughts.

I have been fascinated with the search he has been on to understand the meaning of life. I believe he has been transformed by several events in his early adult life. My hope is that his current position on God and faith and Libertarianism will be short lived. While I believe he knows there is a God, he is having difficulty submitting to Him. One event which crushed his spiritual side was church related. He has not separated the human element from the spiritual with respect to that event. The other event has been more of a process which is an in depth study he has undertaken into libertarianism. Since I once was on the Illinois State Ballot as a Libertarian for the office of Treasurer, I think I know how he got to where he is at believing the importance of the individual over the government control of all things in life.

This I know about Dan, he is truthful, intelligent and industrious. If he cannot fully support someone of some ideal you will certainly know it. I know he currently believes that we are living in a cosmic accident with no creator god. I have difficulty getting my arms around his feelings in lieu of logic in this regard. He also believes quite strongly that there is never any justification for war. This is another conclusion he has reached with the center of the universe being the individual. Humans are not to harm other humans. I cannot understand why the defense against an aggressor nation cannot be justified.

Whatever the consequences are to his current application I know he is prepared to accept them. I am looking forward to continue to meet with him, challenge him, and listen to his changing worldview. We obviously do not agree on some very important life issues but I know he is seriously thinking about them.

If you have any questions for me about Dan or any comments I made in this letter I would be glad to expand on this brief description.

Most Sincerely,

(signed)

Jay D. Marsh

*This letter was signed and notarized on April 28, 2009

Noah M. Marsh

2009-04-28T23:59:00.000-07:00

I, Noah M. Marsh, believe that Daniel J. Lakemacher sincerely believes war to be morally wrong. I met Dan while attending the youth group at the Evangelical Free Church of Crystal Lake (IL) (EFCCL). At the time, Dan was a senior in the youth group whose participation in youth events, mission trips, and evangelistic efforts I greatly admired. Upon his graduation I did not begin talking to Dan again until I began seriously dating his sister-in-law. Since that time Dan and I have engaged in email and phone conversations regarding our beliefs on many issues, e.g. healthcare, economics, politics, theology, etc.

In our conversations over the last year Dan’s beliefs have changed. In the past Dan and I shared our belief in the Christian God, but now Dan declares himself an atheist. This change is remarkable considering the way in which his belief in God determined every facet of his life previously. As a result of this rejection of God, Dan’s other beliefs have been changing over the last year. In August 2008 Dan and I discussed his frustration with the military and the nature of its goals. At that time it was merely frustration, but more recently Dan and I have been discussing his moral objections to war specifically. There is no doubt that over the last year Dan’s belief that war is wrong has emerged.

Throughout our conversations on any topic one of the consistent themes that Dan and I have harkened back to time and time again is consistency between belief and praxis. We have always challenged one another to live out our beliefs, whether Christian or otherwise, and it is out of this desire that Dan has expressed desire to receive CO status.

Over the course of our relationship I have not only observed a change in Dan’s beliefs, but his lifestyle as well. I originally admired Dan for his active participation in the EFCCL and religious devotion, but Dan has ceased all religious activity. Dan no longer proselytizes, works with a church, or even attends a church. Dan and I used to discuss devotional books like Wild at Heart by John Eldridge, but he no longer even reads those books. Instead he gave me a copy of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged to read and discuss. Dan also does not keep in contact with former friends from church. Instead Dan spends his social life interacting with his immediate family and colleagues from his and his wife’s work.

The fact that Dan’s lifestyle has been changing in ways that reflect his changing beliefs is the greatest evidence for his sincerity in my opinion. Dan has always been a man of conviction who has attempted to live a lifestyle coherent with his beliefs. It is this coherency that I respect, and realize that I have always respected, most about Dan. The recent changes in his lifestyle support a change in belief in which a classification as a CO is necessary, if not vital, to his ability to be a healthy and productive member of American society.

I, Noah M. Marsh, with full conviction and in a healthy state of mind, swear that everything written above is my own belief and that I believe it to be true.

(signed)

Noah M. Marsh

*This letter was signed and notarized on April 28, 2009.

Benito Almaguer III

2009-04-02T18:28:00.000-07:00

HM2 Benito Almaguer III
REU BMC 1007
Great Lakes, IL 60088

May 4, 2009

Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes

To Whom it May Concern,

I am HM2 Benito Almaguer III I have been a co-worker and at times direct supervisor of HM2 Daniel Lakemacher for nearly three years.

Upon initially meeting HM2 Lakemacher it was clear that he was very mature and intelligent. He quickly made known his intentions of seeking out responsibilities and progressing in his military career. Already a Petty Officer Third Class, he established himself as a mentor to several younger psych techs that arrived along with him in June 2006. HM2 Lakemacher made it known that the Navy was a career choice he had made in a attempt to become a Navy SEAL and often wondered out loud what his chances might have been. His outstanding work ethic and utmost reliability allowed him to become the only Third Class Petty Officer working at an independent satellite clinic within the recruit separation building ship 17. HM2 Lakemacher worked under one Second Class Petty Officer who was turning over the position upon his rotation date from Great Lakes. This earned him the highest of praises from both senior enlisted and officers which reflected in every yearly evaluation.

He remained at ship 17 until shortly before he deployed to Guantanamo Bay Cuba in July 2007. He was deployed for more then six months in Cuba becoming a pen pal to 30 seventh grade students from Woodland Middle School (delete - promoting the Navy as a great career). Prior to his deployment he verbalized how his deployment was great for periodic evaluations and would help him make second class. While in Cuba he emailed periodically just to inform myself and his immediate chain of command how he was doing and wanting to stay informed with everyday news pertaining to our REU and the command.

He returned from GITMO February 2008 and I spoke with him about his deployment and we talked about co-workers that had moved and some that had separated while he was deployed. He spoke about being happy to be home with his wife and needing some leave time to catch up with his family. During our conversations it was obvious to see he was withholding himself and he seemed hesitant and cautious. Being a psych tech for 11 years I instinctively pushed until he opened up asking if he could speak freely about his deployment. He never gave any detail about his dealing in GITMO just that he was beginning to feel morally conflicted about his Naval career. He told me how he wanted to learn more about what Liberty truly meant, which lead him to read articles and publications from the CATO Institute. He spoke to me about reading the Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard and how he was beginning to change morally. It was obvious that we were clearly at different ends often having long friendly debates about our differences of opinions.

Throughout his time back we have had many discussions about his change of moral and personal ethics yet he never missed a duty and he always informed me ahead of time of any appointments or if he was running late. He remained my most reliable petty officer. His work ethic has never compromised and he even volunteered many of his off duty hours on behalf of the Navy with Habitat for Humanity. This continued to earn him the highest praise while not verbalizing his moral change to the Command. He earned all Early Promote evaluations while a Third Class Petty Officer receiving his first Must Promote after being promoted to Second Class and being told that it is policy not to give newly promoted personnel (delete - Must Promotes and not) Early Promotes. Upon his promotion to Second Class Petty Officer he was given the responsibility of Work Center Supervisor over senior Second Class Petty Officers one a former Work Center Supervisor.

He was truly affected by the recent deaths of three service members from his hometown of Woodstock, Illinois. He spoke to me about how even though he didn’t know the three, it felt so close to home for him and it made it clear to him how war is not the answer and that it never resolves any issues. We had spoken many times previously since his return from GITMO but it he had not been so clear as he was that day about his objection to war. (delete - the War on Terror.)

I ask that you sincerely consider the package put forth by HM2 Daniel Lakemacher. I have witnessed a young man’s personal ethics change from wanting to be a Navy SEAL to no longer agreeing with the ideal of war.

Sincerely,

(Signature)

Benito Almaguer III

*This letter was signed and notarized on May 4, 2009.