DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
C Company, 2d Battalion (Assault), 10th Aviation Regiment
Fort Drum, New York 13602
AFZS-AV-AHB-C
11 SEP 96
MEMORANDUM FOR WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
SUBJECT: Rebuttal Rights
I, John R. Goldthwaite, have received a copy of the record of my application,
complete through 11 SEP 96. A statement in rebuttal to the reports, comments,
and recommendations in the record is enclosed/waived (appropriately line-out
and initial)
JOHN R. GOLDTHWAITE
SPC, USA
(SSN withheld)
Upon reading the final report made by Captain Martinez, there are a number of
statements which I would like to address before this proceeding is finalized. I
understand that I am allowed to make a rebuttal according to paragraph 10 of
the memorandum dated 27 AUG 96 which reads: "The version of the hearing as
recorded by the investigating officer is final as to the testimony of the
witnesses. However,
its regularity may be rebutted."
|
|
I do not mean to oppose the recommendation of the Investigating Officer that I
should be removed from military service but I feel that at times during my
various discussions and interviews, I have been misunderstood or misquoted and,
having reexamined the report, I would like to clarify these points.
A misunderstanding has surfaced a number of times in reference to the basis of
my claim. I have attempted to clarify this in my enclosures and in the various
interviews I have had and will attempt to do so again here. The
origin
or
source
of my claim was my objection to certain policies, first, to the Drug War and
Immigration, then to other policies and laws. It was my opposition to these
policies and laws which lead me to re-examine my religious upbringing and moral
values. Thus, in the Chaplain's interview with me, in paragraph 2, it should
read, "the
origin
or the soldier's claim..." and in the Investigating Officer's report it should
read, "because of this policy and my feelings towards it, I
have re-examined my moral principles and based on the moral principles I now
hold, I
no longer am willing to serve."
The reason this has been misunderstood is, I believe, because the source of my
objection was political rather than religious. Had my source been religious, I
don't feel anyone would have misunderstood that I object to military service on
moral grounds, but since my source was political I have been hard pressed to
demonstrate that these certain political issues have lead me to adopt a new
moral
point of view. It seems to me that before any of my colleagues can be convinced
that my
moral principles
are valid, they must first concede that my
political
point of view is correct. Having tried to discuss how my opposition to a
specific policy has lead me to a new moral understanding, those with whom I am
talking have been more inclined to discuss the pros and cons of the particular
political issue I was using as an example.
It is for this reason, I believe, that so few people, if any, really
understand the moral principle which serves as the basis of my claim. That
principle, stated simply, is equal freedom. It is not "life without restraint,"
but moral autonomy
restrained
by the equal freedom of others. It is equality in the sense that all power and
jurisdiction is reciprocal. It is freedom because, if all power and
jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more power or greater jurisdiction
than any other, people are free to act within the jurisdiction of their own
person and property. That is to say, if that jurisdiction is violated, one
individual has exceeded his jurisdiction and another has had his jurisdiction
trespassed. The two can no longer be said to be equal nor can the one whose
jurisdiction was trespassed be said to be free.
Equal freedom is a moral principle nor a political policy. And although in the
past I have
said
that I believed in equality and freedom, just as most people in the United
States
say
they believe in equality and freedom, a re-examination of my behavior in the
light of this principle has demonstrated to me, as it
should
demonstrate to everyone else, that the United States is not based on the
principles of equality and freedom, and my behavior before I came to this
realization was not consistent with the principles of equality and freedom,
just as the behavior of anyone who serves this nation, or any other nation, is
not behaving in accordance with the principles of equality and freedom.
In reference to the Investigating Officer's question comparing the Army to a
large corporation, if I were to compare the Army or the United States
government to a corporation, it would have to be a corporation of organized
criminals the only difference being that criminals are usually not hypocritical
or foolish enough to think that they are forcing others to do things
for their own good
or
for the good of the society as a whole.
Taxation and protectionism is no different
in principle
from inner city gangs defending the borders of their territories and forcing
merchants within their borders to pay "for protection" from rival gangs.
Had I joined a corporation to work as a security guard and later realized that
this corporation was forcing everyone living within a certain territory to
support that corporation and abide by corporate policy regardless of moral
disagreements, I would likely object just as I am objecting to military
service.
I mentioned anarchy in my interview with the Investigating Officer and in the
enclosures I submitted as exhibit A and B. By Anarchist, I wish to be
understood as a person who believes that society
should
be organized in such a way that all men rule themselves and neither rule others
nor are ruled by others. I do not mean that rulers should be violently opposed.
For this reason I believe that most people who comprise militias are ignorant
or evil. Most militias seem to be composed of religious or prejudiced and
militant extremists. I could never be a part of such a group because I find
their superstition, religion, prejudice and willful ignorance disgusting.
Lastly, I believe that it would be possible for men to live together
voluntarily without government and without any laws except those founded in the
principle of equal freedom. It would be possible, that is, if not for all the
ignorant and prejudiced people in the world. I stated that the Declaration of
Independence is founded in the principle of equal freedom though there are some
inaccuracies. The term ‘self-evident' is an oxymoron, not all men
are
equal, there is nothing evident, and certainly nothing self-evident, about a
creation or a creator, the Rights referred to
are
alienated routinely. This is how I would have written it,
We hold these principles to be primaries, that all men
should
be equal in power and in jurisdiction, that they
should
be endowed by their equals with certain Rights within their individual
jurisdictions, that it would be impossible to positively enumerate all of these
Rights therefore they must be defined negatively as the Right to behave in a
particular way so long as the equality of all others is maintained, that
government, per se,
should
be instituted among men
only
when disputes over individual jurisdiction arise and then
only
to secure individual rights.
The Declaration itself says that the just powers of government are derived
from the consent of the governed. It cannot mean that so long as a majority
consents, all may be governed anymore than it can mean that so long as one
consents, all may be governed. It can only mean that so long as one person does
not consent, any power exercised over that one person is unjust. If I do not
consent to pay taxes, forcing me to do so is unjust
according to the Declaration of Independence.
If anyone chooses to sell drugs, buy drugs, use drugs, cross a border or
"break" any law to which that person never consented, forcing him to obey that
law, and thus be governed
against
his consent, is unjust
according to the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence is a declaration for
moral
independence and although, as I said, there are some things in it which I
believe to be inaccurate, I accept its principle as my own primary moral
principle. Whether I think it right or wrong to drink or smoke any particular
substance, that is, whether I think it moral or immoral to do so, is superseded
by my belief that it is immoral for me to determine for anyone else, what is
moral and what is immoral, in other words, to force someone else to make the
moral decision that this is wrong and I won't do it or this is right and I may
or must do it. Furthermore, if it is wrong or immoral to do this for someone
else, it is only a small step further to see that it is also wrong or immoral
to support or condone the behavior of others who do it.
Government by consent makes all men equal. Government without consent makes
some men rulers and others subjects. I do not accept as legitimate any
government which governs without consent. The United States government is no
more a government by consent, for me and perhaps for others, than the
government of the Bloods or the Crypts or any other government or gang which
rules by force. All being illegitimate, their borders and territories mean
nothing to me. The only reason I will pay taxes and obey laws which otherwise I
would not feel morally compelled to obey is for the same reason I would obey
the "law" of the criminal who tells me to hand over my wallet, not because it
is right or moral or because I
consent
but because disobedience would expose me to dangers I'm not willing at the
moment to face. Of course, if I were willing to face the danger I would see
nothing wrong with disobeying the criminal whether he call himself a criminal
or whether he refers to that organization to which he belongs.
|
Get your own
Free Home Page