The story below ran yesterday in The Australian Higher Education publication. We share it with you because such requests for unreasonable accommodations are being repeated over and over again in the countries of Western Europe, and are slowly becoming more commonplace here in America.
In the story below, Muslim students want classes to be rescheduled to fit in with their prayer timetables, as well as separate male and female eating and recreational areas established.
Imagine the havoc wreaked on society if our public universities were to accommodate such unreasonable requests as these from Muslims. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc., etc. etc., would then rightfully step up and ask for unreasonable accommodations for their beliefs as well. Yet it seems that, not only are more and more Muslims around the world requesting - even demanding - such accommodations, it is clear they believe they have every right to such accommodations.
Simultaneously, it does not seem to occur to these Muslims that requests like those in the story below blatantly infringe on the rights and beliefs of other students, professors and staff. Or if it does, the attitude is that the rights and beliefs of others must give way to the practice of their Islamic faith.
Which begs this question: Why?
Why do these Muslims believe they have the right to subordinate the rights and beliefs of others? While we cannot read their minds, it is reasonable to conclude that such a belief emanates from the Qu'ranic doctrines of Islamic supremacy and forceful subjugation of all other beliefs to that supremacy.
After all, if you accept what the Qu'ran and the Hadith teach about the supremacy of Islam and Allah, about not only the right but the duty of Muslims to forcefully subordinate all other beliefs to Islam and Allah, then it is perfectly logical to conclude that you have the right to demand accommodations for your beliefs that subordinate the beliefs of everyone else to yours.
This is the theological rationale and justification for Islamic Jihad, whether by violence or "Cultural Jihad" - the subversion and ultimate conquering of a society from within by means other than physical violence. For what is Jihad but the call to subjugate "infidels" to the "supreme" religion of Islam and Allah?
It is one reason why sociologists and authors who are studying the migration of Islam around the globe regularly note that most Muslims do not "assimilate" in societies to which they migrate that are not Muslim. Even when they are in a small minority in a society, it is not uncommon for Muslims to demand special accommodations that no other religious belief in that society would demand.
Therefore, even if a Muslim denounces "terror" and the concept of "jihad," but at the same time demands unreasonable accommodations for his beliefs that result in the direct subordination of the rights and beliefs of others to his Islamic beliefs, he in effect acts as a "warrior" for Islamic jihad, whether he acknowledges it or not.
And as the Brits have learned, the more a society submits to these demands, the more emboldened the militant Muslims become and the more demands they make. Small wonder the Archbishop of Canterbury recently stated that the imposition of sharia law in Great Britain was "unavoidable" and necessary for "social cohesion."
In submitting to militant Muslim demands for accommodations for their beliefs, a society communicates to the militant Muslim that he is correct and that his belief in the supremacy of Islam and Allah is justified. This is why submitting to cultural jihad is every bit as dangerous as submitting to violent jihad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims want unis to fit prayer time
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23269447-12332,00.html
Richard Kerbaj and Milanda Rout | February 25, 2008
MUSLIM university students want lectures to be rescheduled to fit in with prayer timetables and separate male and female eating and recreational areas established on Australian campuses.
International Muslim students, predominantly from Saudi Arabia, have asked universities in Melbourne to change class times so they can attend congregational prayers. They also want a female-only area for Muslim students to eat and relax.
But at least one institution has rejected their demands, arguing that the university is secular and it does not want to set a precedent for requests granted in the name of religious beliefs.
La Trobe University International chief officer John Molony said several students had approached the Bundoora institution about rearranging class times to fit in with daily prayers.
Mr Molony said the university was attempting to "meet the needs" of an increasing number of Muslim international students, including doubling the size of the prayer room on campus.
La Trobe University International College director Martin Van Run said that although it was involved in discussions with the Muslim students who had made the requests, the university was not planning to change any timetables.
"That would seriously inconvenience other people at the college and it is not institutionally viable," he told The Australian. "We are a secular institution ... and we need to have a structured timetable."
Mr Van Run said that Saudi students were fully aware that the university was secular before coming to study there. "They know well in advance the class times," he said.
A spokesman for RMIT University would neither confirm nor deny reports that Muslim students had requested timetable changes.
One university source told The Australian that the requests by Muslim international students for timetable changes included a petition.
"Some of the students would prefer that lecture times were organised so it would be easy for them to attend prayers," he said. "But it wouldn't be a good precedent to set."
Islamic leaders yesterday backed the push by Muslim students to have their lectures arranged to accommodate prayer sessions, but said such a move would be essential only for congregational Friday prayers.
Female Muslim leader Aziza Abdel-Halim said yesterday it was a religious duty for those who followed Islam to preach with their fellow believers on Fridays.
But the former senior member of John Howard's Muslim reference board said there was nothing in Islam that indicated men and women be segregated when it came to educational activities.
"There's nothing in Islam that says there should be complete segregation, especially in educational institutions," said Sister Abdel-Halim.
She said afternoon prayers for Muslims - Zhohor, at 1.10pm, and Asr, at 4.50pm - could be performed until 10 minutes before the following daily prayer, so it was more appropriate to alter prayer times than lecture schedules.
"It's reasonable to ask for the lectures to be shifted around on Friday," Sister Abdel-Halim said. "But if it's going to cause havoc with the timetable, I don't think it's really feasible to ask for every single prayer to be catered for."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Doing The Right Thing
Joseph Galloway: Doing right by the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan
SUNDAY, February 17, 2008
If a society is judged by the way it treats its military veterans, then we who live in the richest nation in the world and those who lead us should be condemned for our shameful neglect and callous disregard for those who defend us.
When 15 million Johnnies came marching home from World War II, a package of benefits enacted in 1944 and signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was waiting for them, extending assistance for education, unemployment and the purchase of a house or a business.
More than half of those who served in World War II - 8 million of the 15 million veterans of that war - signed up and had their college tuitions or technical school fees paid by Uncle Sam. They also received monthly checks to cover housing and food.
It was expensive, but for every dollar the U.S. government spent on educational benefits for WWII veterans, the government recouped between $5 and $12 in taxes paid on the higher incomes earned by college graduates, says the Congressional Research Service.
Veterans of Korea and Vietnam got sharply limited benefits, and received only monthly checks for college education, and small checks at that: The government no longer paid for tuition.
By 1985, with an all-volunteer military and America at peace, Congress enacted an even more limited educational benefit, the Montgomery GI Bill. A young soldier now is required torequest future college benefits upon enlistment, and also must agree to contribute $100 a month from his or her pay during the first year of service.
In return, upon discharge, he or she can apply through the Veterans Administration for 36 months of support for college, but the checks are capped at $1,100 a month, and in reality they average about $800.
That was little enough 23 years ago, but it was considered sufficient for troops who'd served in peacetime. But that $1,100 is worth about half of what it was in 1985 - and college expenses have risen much faster than retail prices have.
What's more, this isn't peacetime: We've been at war for the last six years, and we may remain at war for years to come. Many of today's young veterans have served two or three or more combat tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Some of them arrive on campus missing an arm or a leg, or suffering from brain injuries or PTSD.
They want to get on with their lives and build a better future by getting the college education that they weren't ready for, or that their families couldn't afford, when they finished high school.
Sen. James Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam veteran, has been doggedly pursuing passage of a new GI Bill aimed at helping these new wartime veterans get that education by giving them much the same educational benefits that were extended to their grandfathers after WWII.
Under his bill, which has attracted three dozen other sponsors, the government would resume paying full college tuition for these veterans for a period linked to their times in uniform, but for no more than 36 months or four academic years. Every eligible college veteran also would receive a check for $1,000 a month to help cover living expenses.
This would cost the government about $2 billion a year, which is about what we're presently spending every 36 hours in Iraq.
President George W. Bush and the Pentagon oppose any such improvement of this miserly benefit for our young veterans. Why? The president says it would cost too much and be too hard to administer, and he's threatened to veto Webb's bill if it ever passes.
The Pentagon says that if you offer more realistic college benefits, too many troops might decide to leave at the end of their enlistments and take advantage of it. And that, they say, would only make it even harder to find and enlist enough recruits to man our wars.
Those arguments against doing the right thing for college veterans are, in the case of our "wartime president," about what I've come to expect of a man whose support for our troops has never extended past strutting through the latest photo op on a military base or an aircraft carrier.
The argument of the Pentagon bean counters - who in the best tradition of former Vietnam-era defense secretary Robert Strange McNamara know the cost of everything and the value of nothing - may be accurate.
However, it is cruel, callous and uncaring in the extreme not to give our troops any hope of a life beyond endless deployments for fear that they might opt for an education over the simple joys of killing and dying far from home.
Three former presidents, a dozen U.S. senators including Webb, several Supreme Court justices, 36 Nobel Prize recipients, several university presidents and millions of American veterans got a leg up from previous GI Bills.
We owe our newest combat veterans no less. Write, call or e-mail your senators and your representative in Congress and ask for their votes in favor of Jim Webb's new GI Bill.
If George W. Bush vetoes so modest a gesture of gratitude to the young veterans who've given so much in the wars of his making, then we can add hypocrisy and shame to the long list of sins that are the hallmarks of his presidency.
More about Joe Galloway:
http://www.national infantryfoundati on.org/advisor_ galloway. shtml
http://www.mcclatch ydc.com/galloway / (contact)
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------
Contributed,
YNCS Don Harribine, USN(ret)
SUNDAY, February 17, 2008
If a society is judged by the way it treats its military veterans, then we who live in the richest nation in the world and those who lead us should be condemned for our shameful neglect and callous disregard for those who defend us.
When 15 million Johnnies came marching home from World War II, a package of benefits enacted in 1944 and signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was waiting for them, extending assistance for education, unemployment and the purchase of a house or a business.
More than half of those who served in World War II - 8 million of the 15 million veterans of that war - signed up and had their college tuitions or technical school fees paid by Uncle Sam. They also received monthly checks to cover housing and food.
It was expensive, but for every dollar the U.S. government spent on educational benefits for WWII veterans, the government recouped between $5 and $12 in taxes paid on the higher incomes earned by college graduates, says the Congressional Research Service.
Veterans of Korea and Vietnam got sharply limited benefits, and received only monthly checks for college education, and small checks at that: The government no longer paid for tuition.
By 1985, with an all-volunteer military and America at peace, Congress enacted an even more limited educational benefit, the Montgomery GI Bill. A young soldier now is required torequest future college benefits upon enlistment, and also must agree to contribute $100 a month from his or her pay during the first year of service.
In return, upon discharge, he or she can apply through the Veterans Administration for 36 months of support for college, but the checks are capped at $1,100 a month, and in reality they average about $800.
That was little enough 23 years ago, but it was considered sufficient for troops who'd served in peacetime. But that $1,100 is worth about half of what it was in 1985 - and college expenses have risen much faster than retail prices have.
What's more, this isn't peacetime: We've been at war for the last six years, and we may remain at war for years to come. Many of today's young veterans have served two or three or more combat tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Some of them arrive on campus missing an arm or a leg, or suffering from brain injuries or PTSD.
They want to get on with their lives and build a better future by getting the college education that they weren't ready for, or that their families couldn't afford, when they finished high school.
Sen. James Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam veteran, has been doggedly pursuing passage of a new GI Bill aimed at helping these new wartime veterans get that education by giving them much the same educational benefits that were extended to their grandfathers after WWII.
Under his bill, which has attracted three dozen other sponsors, the government would resume paying full college tuition for these veterans for a period linked to their times in uniform, but for no more than 36 months or four academic years. Every eligible college veteran also would receive a check for $1,000 a month to help cover living expenses.
This would cost the government about $2 billion a year, which is about what we're presently spending every 36 hours in Iraq.
President George W. Bush and the Pentagon oppose any such improvement of this miserly benefit for our young veterans. Why? The president says it would cost too much and be too hard to administer, and he's threatened to veto Webb's bill if it ever passes.
The Pentagon says that if you offer more realistic college benefits, too many troops might decide to leave at the end of their enlistments and take advantage of it. And that, they say, would only make it even harder to find and enlist enough recruits to man our wars.
Those arguments against doing the right thing for college veterans are, in the case of our "wartime president," about what I've come to expect of a man whose support for our troops has never extended past strutting through the latest photo op on a military base or an aircraft carrier.
The argument of the Pentagon bean counters - who in the best tradition of former Vietnam-era defense secretary Robert Strange McNamara know the cost of everything and the value of nothing - may be accurate.
However, it is cruel, callous and uncaring in the extreme not to give our troops any hope of a life beyond endless deployments for fear that they might opt for an education over the simple joys of killing and dying far from home.
Three former presidents, a dozen U.S. senators including Webb, several Supreme Court justices, 36 Nobel Prize recipients, several university presidents and millions of American veterans got a leg up from previous GI Bills.
We owe our newest combat veterans no less. Write, call or e-mail your senators and your representative in Congress and ask for their votes in favor of Jim Webb's new GI Bill.
If George W. Bush vetoes so modest a gesture of gratitude to the young veterans who've given so much in the wars of his making, then we can add hypocrisy and shame to the long list of sins that are the hallmarks of his presidency.
More about Joe Galloway:
http://www.national infantryfoundati on.org/advisor_ galloway. shtml
http://www.mcclatch ydc.com/galloway / (contact)
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------
Contributed,
YNCS Don Harribine, USN(ret)
Monday, February 18, 2008
Inside Vietnam TONIGHT!!!
National Geographic Channel Goes "Inside the Vietnam War"
How did the United States' mission to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia escalate into our country's longest war? Which military strategies failed and which succeeded? What did our servicemen experience on the battlefields? This President’s Day, National Geographic Channel (NGC) transports viewers back to the tumultuous years of the Vietnam War, providing a fresh, personal, in-depth look at a decades-old struggle with Inside the Vietnam War, a landmark three-hour television event debuting Monday, February 18, at 8 p.m. ET/PT.
Inside the Vietnam War takes you inside covert operations, gives you a seat at the military strategy table, and lets you witness the toll of war through the eyes of the soldiers who had their boots on the ground and the pilots who undertook dozens of death-defying missions. The program also includes testimonials from more than 50 Vietnam veterans, archival audio and video footage, and never-before-seen photos.
NGC has is carried by all of the nation’s major cable and satellite television providers, making it currently available to more than 67 million homes. For more information, please visit www.nationalgeographic.com/channel.
How did the United States' mission to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia escalate into our country's longest war? Which military strategies failed and which succeeded? What did our servicemen experience on the battlefields? This President’s Day, National Geographic Channel (NGC) transports viewers back to the tumultuous years of the Vietnam War, providing a fresh, personal, in-depth look at a decades-old struggle with Inside the Vietnam War, a landmark three-hour television event debuting Monday, February 18, at 8 p.m. ET/PT.
Inside the Vietnam War takes you inside covert operations, gives you a seat at the military strategy table, and lets you witness the toll of war through the eyes of the soldiers who had their boots on the ground and the pilots who undertook dozens of death-defying missions. The program also includes testimonials from more than 50 Vietnam veterans, archival audio and video footage, and never-before-seen photos.
NGC has is carried by all of the nation’s major cable and satellite television providers, making it currently available to more than 67 million homes. For more information, please visit www.nationalgeographic.com/channel.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Disabled Vets Don't Miss Out!!
Liberty Tax Service Files Free Returns For Taxpayers Who Don't Meet Regular Filing Requirements
Business Wire
If you are eligible for a payment, all you have to do is file a 2007 tax return. Liberty Tax Service is offering to prepare tax returns at no charge for select taxpayers who have no tax liability. Low income workers, or those who receive Social Security benefits or veterans' disability compensation, pension or survivors benefits received from the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2007 will be eligible to receive a payment of $300 ($600 on a joint return) if they had at least $3,000 of qualifying income.
Qualifying income includes Social Security benefits, certain Railroad Retirement benefits, certain veterans' benefits, and earned income, such as income from wages, salaries, tips and self-employment. While these people might not normally be required to file a tax return because they do not meet the filing requirement, they must file a 2007 return in order to receive a rebate.
"Liberty Tax Service wants to help people who do not normally have to file a return get the rebate they are entitled to receive. Many people who receive Social Security and veterans benefits are likely to overlook this opportunity to get the stimulus payment. Last year, over 30 million taxpayers missed the telephone excise tax credit that was due to them. We don't want that to occur with the tax stimulus package," states John Hewitt, CEO of Liberty Tax Service. "Liberty is known for our commitment to give back to the communities that support our company. This is just another way we can help out."
Liberty Tax Service will be mounting a public awareness campaign to ensure that everyone entitled to a stimulus payment is alerted. Anyone who has questions can e-mail taxrebates@libertytax.com for more information. Representatives from Liberty Tax Service are available to comment on this program as well.
About Liberty Tax Service
Liberty Tax Service is the fastest growing retail tax preparation company in the industry's history. Founded in 1997 by CEO John T. Hewitt, a pioneer in the tax industry, Liberty Tax Service ( www.libertytax.com ) has prepared over 5,000,000 individual income tax returns and currently operates over 2,700 offices throughout the United States and Canada.
Liberty Tax Service provides computerized income tax preparation, electronic filing, and refund loans. With an emphasis on customer service including audit assistance, a money back guarantee and free tax return checking, Liberty Tax Service is well known for its strong commitment to its client base.
With 39 years of tax industry experience, Hewitt stands as the most experienced CEO in the tax preparation business, having also founded Jackson Hewitt Tax Service (NYSE: JTX).
-------------------------
by Larry Scott
VA Watchdog dot Org
Business Wire
If you are eligible for a payment, all you have to do is file a 2007 tax return. Liberty Tax Service is offering to prepare tax returns at no charge for select taxpayers who have no tax liability. Low income workers, or those who receive Social Security benefits or veterans' disability compensation, pension or survivors benefits received from the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2007 will be eligible to receive a payment of $300 ($600 on a joint return) if they had at least $3,000 of qualifying income.
Qualifying income includes Social Security benefits, certain Railroad Retirement benefits, certain veterans' benefits, and earned income, such as income from wages, salaries, tips and self-employment. While these people might not normally be required to file a tax return because they do not meet the filing requirement, they must file a 2007 return in order to receive a rebate.
"Liberty Tax Service wants to help people who do not normally have to file a return get the rebate they are entitled to receive. Many people who receive Social Security and veterans benefits are likely to overlook this opportunity to get the stimulus payment. Last year, over 30 million taxpayers missed the telephone excise tax credit that was due to them. We don't want that to occur with the tax stimulus package," states John Hewitt, CEO of Liberty Tax Service. "Liberty is known for our commitment to give back to the communities that support our company. This is just another way we can help out."
Liberty Tax Service will be mounting a public awareness campaign to ensure that everyone entitled to a stimulus payment is alerted. Anyone who has questions can e-mail taxrebates@libertytax.com for more information. Representatives from Liberty Tax Service are available to comment on this program as well.
About Liberty Tax Service
Liberty Tax Service is the fastest growing retail tax preparation company in the industry's history. Founded in 1997 by CEO John T. Hewitt, a pioneer in the tax industry, Liberty Tax Service ( www.libertytax.com ) has prepared over 5,000,000 individual income tax returns and currently operates over 2,700 offices throughout the United States and Canada.
Liberty Tax Service provides computerized income tax preparation, electronic filing, and refund loans. With an emphasis on customer service including audit assistance, a money back guarantee and free tax return checking, Liberty Tax Service is well known for its strong commitment to its client base.
With 39 years of tax industry experience, Hewitt stands as the most experienced CEO in the tax preparation business, having also founded Jackson Hewitt Tax Service (NYSE: JTX).
-------------------------
by Larry Scott
VA Watchdog dot Org
Monday, February 11, 2008
Those Who Stand Against US
The City Council in Berkeley and now in Ohio and other cities around the nation support the movements such as Code Pink. To see what Code Pink is about take a look at the video below. These are the people who are standing against America. In my opinion they are no better than the enemies of our Nation that we fight around the world. They are terrorist just as much as those who bears arms against us. They simple use words and mind games to poison the minds of the unsuspecting, the unknowledgeable, the young and naive. This is the enemy within and they must be watched closely, very closely. These are also part of the group who protest military funerals around the nation with the Westborough Baptist Church group, those the Patriot Guard, America Forward, Gathering of Eagles and Eagles Up stand against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdrkmtkCw4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdrkmtkCw4
Justice May Be Served
Six Guantanamo detainees will face death penalty
Military prosecutors moving forward with cases against those accused of having central roles in the Sept. 11 terror attacks
By William Glaberson
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Monday, February 11, 2008
Military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty for six Guantánamo detainees who are set to be charged with having central roles in the Sept. 11 attacks, government officials who have been briefed on the charges said Sunday.
The officials said the charges would be announced at the Pentagon as soon as today and were likely to include numerous war-crimes charges against the six men, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has described himself as the mastermind of the attacks.
A Defense Department official said prosecutors were seeking the death penalty because "if any case warrants it, it would be for individuals who were parties to a crime of that scale."
The officials spoke anonymously because no one was authorized to speak about the case.
A decision to seek the death penalty would increase the international focus on the case and present new challenges to the troubled military commission system.
"The system hasn't been able to handle the less complicated cases it has been presented with to date," said David Glazier, a former Navy officer who is a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Among the other five suspects who will be charged are detainees who officials say were coordinators and intermediaries in the plot, including a man labeled the "20th hijacker" who was denied entry to the United States in the month before the attacks.
Under the rules of the Guantánamo war-crimes system, military prosecutors can designate charges as capital when they present them, and it is that first phase of the process that is expected this week.
The military official who then reviews them, Susan Crawford, a former military appeals court judge, has the authority to accept or reject a death penalty request.
A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment Sunday.
Some of those briefed on the case have said the prosecutors view their task, to seek convictions in the Sept. 11 attacks, as a historic challenge. A special group of military and Justice Department lawyers has been working on the case for several years.
If the detainees were to be convicted on capital charges, any execution would not be carried out for many months or even years, lawyers said, in part because a death sentence would have to be scrutinized by civilian appeals courts.
The military justice system provides for execution by lethal injection in death sentence convictions. But the U.S. military has rarely executed a prisoner in recent times — the last military execution was in 1961.
One official who had been briefed on the case said the charges were expected to be lodged against six detainees at Guantánamo, including Mohammed, who reportedly presented the idea of an airliner attack on the United States to Osama bin Laden in 1999 and then coordinated its planning.
The official identified the others to be charged as Mohamed al-Kahtani, the man officials have labeled the 20th hijacker; Ramzi Binalshibh, accused of being the main intermediary between the hijackers and leaders of al Qaeda; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, known as Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of Mohammed, who has been identified as Mohammed's lieutenant for the 2001 operation; Baluchi's assistant, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi; and Walid bin Attash, a detainee known as Khallad, who investigators say selected and trained some of the hijackers.
The military commission system has been beset by legal challenges and practical difficulties almost from the start, when it was set up in an order by President Bush in November 2001.
Although officials have spoken of charging 80 or more detainees with war crimes, only one case has been completed, and that was through a plea bargain.
Tom Fleener, an Army Reserve major who was until recently a military defense lawyer at Guantánamo, said that bringing death penalty cases would bog down the system.
He noted that many legal questions remain unanswered at Guantánamo, including how much of the trials will be conducted in secret proceedings; how the military judges will handle any evidence obtained through coercive tactics; and whether the judges will require experienced death penalty lawyers to take part in such cases.
"Neither the system is ready, nor are the defense attorneys ready to do a death penalty case in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba," Fleener said.
Military prosecutors moving forward with cases against those accused of having central roles in the Sept. 11 terror attacks
By William Glaberson
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Monday, February 11, 2008
Military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty for six Guantánamo detainees who are set to be charged with having central roles in the Sept. 11 attacks, government officials who have been briefed on the charges said Sunday.
The officials said the charges would be announced at the Pentagon as soon as today and were likely to include numerous war-crimes charges against the six men, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has described himself as the mastermind of the attacks.
A Defense Department official said prosecutors were seeking the death penalty because "if any case warrants it, it would be for individuals who were parties to a crime of that scale."
The officials spoke anonymously because no one was authorized to speak about the case.
A decision to seek the death penalty would increase the international focus on the case and present new challenges to the troubled military commission system.
"The system hasn't been able to handle the less complicated cases it has been presented with to date," said David Glazier, a former Navy officer who is a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Among the other five suspects who will be charged are detainees who officials say were coordinators and intermediaries in the plot, including a man labeled the "20th hijacker" who was denied entry to the United States in the month before the attacks.
Under the rules of the Guantánamo war-crimes system, military prosecutors can designate charges as capital when they present them, and it is that first phase of the process that is expected this week.
The military official who then reviews them, Susan Crawford, a former military appeals court judge, has the authority to accept or reject a death penalty request.
A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment Sunday.
Some of those briefed on the case have said the prosecutors view their task, to seek convictions in the Sept. 11 attacks, as a historic challenge. A special group of military and Justice Department lawyers has been working on the case for several years.
If the detainees were to be convicted on capital charges, any execution would not be carried out for many months or even years, lawyers said, in part because a death sentence would have to be scrutinized by civilian appeals courts.
The military justice system provides for execution by lethal injection in death sentence convictions. But the U.S. military has rarely executed a prisoner in recent times — the last military execution was in 1961.
One official who had been briefed on the case said the charges were expected to be lodged against six detainees at Guantánamo, including Mohammed, who reportedly presented the idea of an airliner attack on the United States to Osama bin Laden in 1999 and then coordinated its planning.
The official identified the others to be charged as Mohamed al-Kahtani, the man officials have labeled the 20th hijacker; Ramzi Binalshibh, accused of being the main intermediary between the hijackers and leaders of al Qaeda; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, known as Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of Mohammed, who has been identified as Mohammed's lieutenant for the 2001 operation; Baluchi's assistant, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi; and Walid bin Attash, a detainee known as Khallad, who investigators say selected and trained some of the hijackers.
The military commission system has been beset by legal challenges and practical difficulties almost from the start, when it was set up in an order by President Bush in November 2001.
Although officials have spoken of charging 80 or more detainees with war crimes, only one case has been completed, and that was through a plea bargain.
Tom Fleener, an Army Reserve major who was until recently a military defense lawyer at Guantánamo, said that bringing death penalty cases would bog down the system.
He noted that many legal questions remain unanswered at Guantánamo, including how much of the trials will be conducted in secret proceedings; how the military judges will handle any evidence obtained through coercive tactics; and whether the judges will require experienced death penalty lawyers to take part in such cases.
"Neither the system is ready, nor are the defense attorneys ready to do a death penalty case in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba," Fleener said.
Terror For Children
Poison cake kills Iraqi children
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad
The UK government has flown antidote medicine to the Middle East after some Iraqis became seriously ill from eating cakes laced with the poison thallium.
Two of the victims, both children, died after eating cake delivered to a military club in Baghdad.
Others are being treated in hospital in the Jordanian capital, Amman.
It is the first time the deadly toxin has been used since the downfall of Saddam Hussein, whose regime used it to kill its opponents.
At least two of the poison victims, the secretary of the Iraqi air force club and his daughter, are critically ill in Amman.
They and half-a-dozen other patients suffering from thallium poisoning were flown from Baghdad to Amman as the necessary treatments and antidotes were not available in Iraq.
Britain responded to a request for help from the World Health Organization and medication was flown out.
Lethal poison
Thallium is a lethal poison much used by Saddam Hussein's regime against its opponents. It has not surfaced since his overthrow.
It is an ideal assassin's tool, being tasteless and easy to administer, and its effects take some time to appear.
It then causes a lingering and painful death. An antidote known as Prussian Blue can be effective if taken quickly.
An investigation is under way in Baghdad, but the affair remains shrouded in mystery. The manager of the air force club told the BBC he believed it was carried out by conspirators with a grudge against the club's administration.
In what appeared to be a goodwill gesture, a former official delivered two cakes laced with thallium.
They were taken home by two officials and eaten by their families, who all fell ill.
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad
The UK government has flown antidote medicine to the Middle East after some Iraqis became seriously ill from eating cakes laced with the poison thallium.
Two of the victims, both children, died after eating cake delivered to a military club in Baghdad.
Others are being treated in hospital in the Jordanian capital, Amman.
It is the first time the deadly toxin has been used since the downfall of Saddam Hussein, whose regime used it to kill its opponents.
At least two of the poison victims, the secretary of the Iraqi air force club and his daughter, are critically ill in Amman.
They and half-a-dozen other patients suffering from thallium poisoning were flown from Baghdad to Amman as the necessary treatments and antidotes were not available in Iraq.
Britain responded to a request for help from the World Health Organization and medication was flown out.
Lethal poison
Thallium is a lethal poison much used by Saddam Hussein's regime against its opponents. It has not surfaced since his overthrow.
It is an ideal assassin's tool, being tasteless and easy to administer, and its effects take some time to appear.
It then causes a lingering and painful death. An antidote known as Prussian Blue can be effective if taken quickly.
An investigation is under way in Baghdad, but the affair remains shrouded in mystery. The manager of the air force club told the BBC he believed it was carried out by conspirators with a grudge against the club's administration.
In what appeared to be a goodwill gesture, a former official delivered two cakes laced with thallium.
They were taken home by two officials and eaten by their families, who all fell ill.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Vets Commission Reccomendation Updates
VFW Wants Dole/Shalala Recommendation Blocked
Creating separate system is an injustice to all disabled veterans
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2008--The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is urging the leadership of four key congressional committees to block attempts to create a separate disability system that would have the Department of Veterans Affairs compensate veterans with similar wounds differently based on their age.
"There is no difference between a 22-year-old shot in the leg on Iwo Jima 63 years ago this month and a 22-year-old shot in the leg in Iraq yesterday," said VFW National Commander George Lisicki, a Vietnam veteran from Carteret, N.J. "To compensate them differently based solely on age, and using the rational that this new generation is more deserving than older veterans, is an injustice, and violates every fundamental rule of fairness that Americans hold dear."
The recommendation in contention was made by the President's Commission on Care for America's Wounded Warriors, which was co-chaired by retired Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. The Dole/Shalala Commission was chartered in March 2007 as the administration's response to the outpatient housing debacle at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Four months later, the commission published a 149-page report with six broad recommendations.
The VFW wants more attention paid to the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission that Congress chartered in 2004 to study the benefits that compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. After thousands of interviews and almost three years of research – including major studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Center for Naval Analysis – it published a 562-page report in October 2007 that included 113 detailed recommendations.
"The Dole/Shalala Commission's mandate was not to make broad generalizations and sweeping recommendations that would throw out a disability compensation system that has served millions of veterans extremely well over the years," said Lisicki. "Dole/Shalala was good, but it wasn't that good, and it certainly wasn't thorough enough to be touted as the 'cure-all' for all the VA's problems."
The VFW national commander is very concerned that a major change in the way the VA conducts business may be forced upon America's veterans without any opposition.
"The VFW is 100 percent against compensating veterans with the same injuries differently because of their age," said Lisicki, who voiced the VFW's opposition yesterday in a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and Veterans Affairs. [Read letter]
VFW Washington Office Executive Director Bob Wallace is now tasked to ensure the VFW's position is conveyed to and understood by the administration and Congress.
"How our nation properly cares for, and then fairly compensates our disabled veterans or their surviving family members are the only issues on the table, and that's why we are calling on Congress to thoroughly evaluate the recommendations made by both commissions" said Wallace, also a Vietnam veteran.
"Everyone wants to do what's best for our troops and for our veterans – to include all the members of both commissions – but what we absolutely must not do is create conditions that could cause the VA to fail in its primary mission," he said. "The VA is a national resource for disabled veterans. As an institution, it must survive, not just for the next 10 years, but for the next 100 years."
-------------------------
VA Watchdog dot Org
Creating separate system is an injustice to all disabled veterans
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2008--The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is urging the leadership of four key congressional committees to block attempts to create a separate disability system that would have the Department of Veterans Affairs compensate veterans with similar wounds differently based on their age.
"There is no difference between a 22-year-old shot in the leg on Iwo Jima 63 years ago this month and a 22-year-old shot in the leg in Iraq yesterday," said VFW National Commander George Lisicki, a Vietnam veteran from Carteret, N.J. "To compensate them differently based solely on age, and using the rational that this new generation is more deserving than older veterans, is an injustice, and violates every fundamental rule of fairness that Americans hold dear."
The recommendation in contention was made by the President's Commission on Care for America's Wounded Warriors, which was co-chaired by retired Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. The Dole/Shalala Commission was chartered in March 2007 as the administration's response to the outpatient housing debacle at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Four months later, the commission published a 149-page report with six broad recommendations.
The VFW wants more attention paid to the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission that Congress chartered in 2004 to study the benefits that compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. After thousands of interviews and almost three years of research – including major studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Center for Naval Analysis – it published a 562-page report in October 2007 that included 113 detailed recommendations.
"The Dole/Shalala Commission's mandate was not to make broad generalizations and sweeping recommendations that would throw out a disability compensation system that has served millions of veterans extremely well over the years," said Lisicki. "Dole/Shalala was good, but it wasn't that good, and it certainly wasn't thorough enough to be touted as the 'cure-all' for all the VA's problems."
The VFW national commander is very concerned that a major change in the way the VA conducts business may be forced upon America's veterans without any opposition.
"The VFW is 100 percent against compensating veterans with the same injuries differently because of their age," said Lisicki, who voiced the VFW's opposition yesterday in a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and Veterans Affairs. [Read letter]
VFW Washington Office Executive Director Bob Wallace is now tasked to ensure the VFW's position is conveyed to and understood by the administration and Congress.
"How our nation properly cares for, and then fairly compensates our disabled veterans or their surviving family members are the only issues on the table, and that's why we are calling on Congress to thoroughly evaluate the recommendations made by both commissions" said Wallace, also a Vietnam veteran.
"Everyone wants to do what's best for our troops and for our veterans – to include all the members of both commissions – but what we absolutely must not do is create conditions that could cause the VA to fail in its primary mission," he said. "The VA is a national resource for disabled veterans. As an institution, it must survive, not just for the next 10 years, but for the next 100 years."
-------------------------
VA Watchdog dot Org
American Legion Scammers or Not?
American Legion Trying to Scam Vets?
U.S. Postal Inspectors Investigate Whether American Legion Letter Was a Mistake Or a Scam
By JOSEPH RHEE
U.S. postal inspectors have been asked to investigate whether the American Legion tried to trick veterans into signing up for membership in the Legion.
In a mailing last year to 800,000 former members, the American Legion said their "benefits as a veteran of the United States Armed Forces have lapsed" and that the only way to "reinstate these important benefits" was to pay $20 to reinstate their American Legion membership.
Under U.S. law, veterans benefits do not lapse over time, and the American Legion now acknowledges the letter, signed by Legion National Adjutant Robert Spanogle, was "a serious mistake."
A retired Air Force major, Robert Hanafin, has filed a complaint of mail fraud with postal inspectors after becoming outraged by what he viewed as a deceptive letter designed to scare people into rejoining the American Legion.
According to Hanafin, "Any veterans organization that uses any such low-down scams to increase membership deserves to stay in the 19th century."
With more than three million members, the American Legion is the largest veterans organization in the country.
American Legion spokesperson Joe March told the Blotter on ABCNews.com that the language was the fault of an outside contractor who neglected to make clear that the lapsed benefits in question were actually American Legion membership benefits.
March said an "electronic editing mistake" by the contractor omitted the "American Legion" reference.
March said the Legion apologized for the error and that "we acted promptly and immediately sent out a correction letter."
Maj. Hanafin, however, said he doesn't buy the American Legion's explanation that the first letter was a mistake.
He points to specific language in the letter that states the benefits were given "in accordance with a special act of Congress."
According to Hanafin, "The disservice they are doing to America's veterans...goes far beyond shameful."
-------------------------
posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org
U.S. Postal Inspectors Investigate Whether American Legion Letter Was a Mistake Or a Scam
By JOSEPH RHEE
U.S. postal inspectors have been asked to investigate whether the American Legion tried to trick veterans into signing up for membership in the Legion.
In a mailing last year to 800,000 former members, the American Legion said their "benefits as a veteran of the United States Armed Forces have lapsed" and that the only way to "reinstate these important benefits" was to pay $20 to reinstate their American Legion membership.
Under U.S. law, veterans benefits do not lapse over time, and the American Legion now acknowledges the letter, signed by Legion National Adjutant Robert Spanogle, was "a serious mistake."
A retired Air Force major, Robert Hanafin, has filed a complaint of mail fraud with postal inspectors after becoming outraged by what he viewed as a deceptive letter designed to scare people into rejoining the American Legion.
According to Hanafin, "Any veterans organization that uses any such low-down scams to increase membership deserves to stay in the 19th century."
With more than three million members, the American Legion is the largest veterans organization in the country.
American Legion spokesperson Joe March told the Blotter on ABCNews.com that the language was the fault of an outside contractor who neglected to make clear that the lapsed benefits in question were actually American Legion membership benefits.
March said an "electronic editing mistake" by the contractor omitted the "American Legion" reference.
March said the Legion apologized for the error and that "we acted promptly and immediately sent out a correction letter."
Maj. Hanafin, however, said he doesn't buy the American Legion's explanation that the first letter was a mistake.
He points to specific language in the letter that states the benefits were given "in accordance with a special act of Congress."
According to Hanafin, "The disservice they are doing to America's veterans...goes far beyond shameful."
-------------------------
posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org
right to Bear Arms
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Congress on Friday urged the Supreme Court to side with gun owners in an upcoming case testing whether an individual has a guaranteed right to bear arms.
Lawmakers want the Supreme Court to end a Washington, D.C., ordinance that prevents legal handgun ownership.
The bipartisan group of senators and representatives signed on to a legal brief supporting a challenge by District of Columbia residents to own a handgun for protection in their home.
The justices hold oral arguments March 18, and could provide a landmark ruling on a legal question that has largely gone answered since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.
In their "amicus" brief, 55 senators and 250 representatives urged the high court to strike down the district's ordinance that prevents citizens from legally owning a handgun.
"We're talking about law-abiding folks -- like you and me -- who cannot exercise their rights simply because of the city they live in," said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana. "Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others. They didn't mean for the laws to apply at some times and not others."
Tester made his remarks in a conservative think-tank speech, along with a co-sponsor, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.
Don't Miss
Supreme Court to rule on right to bear arms
Sixty-eight Democrats in the House and nine in the Senate were joined a larger Republican bloc filing the brief.
The case is the most closely watched this Supreme Court term, and legal and political experts say it has already ignited a fierce social debate this election year.
The issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or is it a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- and therefore subject to strict government regulation?
The amendment states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
District leaders had urged the high court to intervene, saying refusal to do so could prove dire.
A group of 18 Democratic members of the House last month filed their own amicus brief, supporting the district. Led by Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pennsylvania, the lawmakers said the proper venue for deciding gun-control measures is in Congress, not the courts.
"Whether the regulation or prohibition of a particular weapon implicates the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia,' over which Congress has responsibility, is precisely the kind of question best left to the political branches to resolve," they said.
A federal appeals court in March ruled the handgun ban to be unconstitutional, as well as a provision that rifles and shotguns -- which are legal to own in the district -- be kept in the home unloaded, and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled. The rifle regulations are not currently at issue before the Supreme Court.
The district's 31-year-old law has prevented most private citizens from owning and keeping handguns in their homes.
Chicago and and Washington are the only major U.S. cities that have such sweeping handgun bans. Courts have generally upheld bans of semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns in other cities.
Several district residents first challenged the law, some saying they wanted to do something about being constant victims of crime.
Key plaintiff Shelly Parker told CNN recently she wanted the right to have a handgun for peace of mind, and act as a responsible gun owner.
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said "So, I would just like the comfort of knowing at least that I could have a gun if I feel I need one."
Groups that filed supporting briefs include the National Rifle Association and Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Gun Control Bill
House Bill 3095 (provisions governing firearms possession by persons
who have been involuntarily committed)
Substitute offered in the House on February 5, 2008, to properly
identify and refer to the appropriate sections of law governing firearms
possessions by persons who have been involuntarily committed. This act also
mandates that the a court shall notify both the Department of
Licensing and the appropriate federal criminal background agency in conjunction
with the Brady handgun violence prevention act for either the loss or
restoration of rights. In addition this act provides procedures for
notification for loss of right to posses firearms for involuntary
commitment.
The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on February 5,
2008, to properly identify and refer to the appropriate sections of law
governing firearms possessions by persons who have been involuntarily
committed. This act also mandates that the a court shall notify both the
Department of Licensing and the appropriate federal criminal background
agency in conjunction with the Brady handgun violence prevention act
for either the loss or restoration of rights. In addition this act
provides procedures for notification for loss of right to posses firearms
for involuntary commitment.
http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=57473
who have been involuntarily committed)
Substitute offered in the House on February 5, 2008, to properly
identify and refer to the appropriate sections of law governing firearms
possessions by persons who have been involuntarily committed. This act also
mandates that the a court shall notify both the Department of
Licensing and the appropriate federal criminal background agency in conjunction
with the Brady handgun violence prevention act for either the loss or
restoration of rights. In addition this act provides procedures for
notification for loss of right to posses firearms for involuntary
commitment.
The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on February 5,
2008, to properly identify and refer to the appropriate sections of law
governing firearms possessions by persons who have been involuntarily
committed. This act also mandates that the a court shall notify both the
Department of Licensing and the appropriate federal criminal background
agency in conjunction with the Brady handgun violence prevention act
for either the loss or restoration of rights. In addition this act
provides procedures for notification for loss of right to posses firearms
for involuntary commitment.
http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=57473
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
More Legal Escapeism on the Behalf of Feds
This is not what they told us when we enlisted!!!!
Rocky
Links sent by: James starjm50@yahoo. com
All Vet orgs should join the is lawsuit
Lawsuit mentioned in article by: http://www.veterans forcommonsense. org/
also see this article
http://www.veterans forcommonsense. org/files/ VFCS/Proceedings VAFeb2008. pdf
Veterans not entitled to mental health care, U.S. lawyers argue
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
http://www.sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? f=/c/a/2008/ 02/05/MNQLUQ4IS. DTL&hw=Veterans&sn=001&sc=1000
Veterans have no legal right to specific types of medical care, the Bush administration argues in a lawsuit accusing the government of illegally denying mental health treatment to some troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The arguments, filed Wednesday in federal court in San Francisco, strike at the heart of a lawsuit filed on behalf of veterans that claims the health care system for returning troops provides little recourse when the government rejects their medical claims.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is making progress in increasing its staffing and screening veterans for combat-related stress, Justice Department lawyers said. But their central argument is that Congress left decisions about who should get health care, and what type of care, to the VA and not to veterans or the courts.
A federal law providing five years of care for veterans from the date of their discharge establishes "veterans' eligibility for health care, but it does not create an entitlement to any particular medical service," government lawyers said.
They said the law entitles veterans only to "medical care which the secretary (of Veterans Affairs) determines is needed, and only to the extent funds ... are available."
The argument drew a sharp retort from a lawyer for advocacy groups that sued the government in July. The suit is a proposed class action on behalf of 320,000 to 800,000 veterans or their survivors.
"Veterans need to know in this country that the government thinks all their benefits are mere gratuities," attorney Gordon Erspamer said. "They're saying it's completely discretionary, that even if Congress appropriates money for veterans' health care, we can do anything we want with it."
The issue will be joined March 7 at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, who denied the administration' s request last month to dismiss the suit. While the case is pending, the plaintiffs want Conti to order the government to provide immediate mental health treatment for veterans who say they are thinking of killing themselves and to spend another $60 million on health care.
The suit accuses the VA of arbitrarily denying care and benefits to wounded veterans, of forcing them to wait months for treatment and years for benefits, and of failing to provide fair procedures for appealing decisions against them.
The plaintiffs say that the department has a backlog of more than 600,000 disability claims and that 120 veterans a week commit suicide.
In his Jan. 10 ruling that allowed the suit to proceed, Conti said federal law entitles veterans to health care for a specific period after leaving the service, rejecting the government's argument that it was required to provide only as much care as the VA's budget allowed in a given year. A law that President Bush signed last week extended the period from two to five years.
In its latest filing, however, the Justice Department reiterated that Congress had intended "to authorize, but not require, medical care for veterans."
"This court should not interfere with the political branches' design, oversight and modification of VA programs," the government lawyers argued.
They also said the VA "is making great progress in addressing the mental health care needs of combat veterans." Among other things, they cited a law passed in November that required the department to establish a suicide-prevention program that includes making mental health care available around the clock.
The VA has hired nearly 3,800 mental health professionals in the last two years and has at least one specialist in post-traumatic stress disorder at each of its medical centers, the government said.
Since June, government lawyers said, the VA has had a policy that all veterans who seek or are referred for mental health care should be screened within 24 hours, that those found to be at risk of suicide should be treated immediately, and that others should be scheduled for full diagnosis and treatment planning within two weeks. A new suicide-prevention hot line has been responsible for "more than 380 rescues," the lawyers said.
Erspamer, the plaintiffs' lawyer, was unimpressed.
"Nowhere do I see any explanation of what kind of systems they have in place that deal with suicidal veterans," he said. "There's no excuse for not spending the money Congress told them to spend on mental health care and leaving $60 million on the table when people are going out and killing themselves."
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle .com.
http://sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? f=/c/a/2008/ 02/05/MNQLUQ4IS. DTL
Rocky
Links sent by: James starjm50@yahoo. com
All Vet orgs should join the is lawsuit
Lawsuit mentioned in article by: http://www.veterans forcommonsense. org/
also see this article
http://www.veterans forcommonsense. org/files/ VFCS/Proceedings VAFeb2008. pdf
Veterans not entitled to mental health care, U.S. lawyers argue
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
http://www.sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? f=/c/a/2008/ 02/05/MNQLUQ4IS. DTL&hw=Veterans&sn=001&sc=1000
Veterans have no legal right to specific types of medical care, the Bush administration argues in a lawsuit accusing the government of illegally denying mental health treatment to some troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The arguments, filed Wednesday in federal court in San Francisco, strike at the heart of a lawsuit filed on behalf of veterans that claims the health care system for returning troops provides little recourse when the government rejects their medical claims.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is making progress in increasing its staffing and screening veterans for combat-related stress, Justice Department lawyers said. But their central argument is that Congress left decisions about who should get health care, and what type of care, to the VA and not to veterans or the courts.
A federal law providing five years of care for veterans from the date of their discharge establishes "veterans' eligibility for health care, but it does not create an entitlement to any particular medical service," government lawyers said.
They said the law entitles veterans only to "medical care which the secretary (of Veterans Affairs) determines is needed, and only to the extent funds ... are available."
The argument drew a sharp retort from a lawyer for advocacy groups that sued the government in July. The suit is a proposed class action on behalf of 320,000 to 800,000 veterans or their survivors.
"Veterans need to know in this country that the government thinks all their benefits are mere gratuities," attorney Gordon Erspamer said. "They're saying it's completely discretionary, that even if Congress appropriates money for veterans' health care, we can do anything we want with it."
The issue will be joined March 7 at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, who denied the administration' s request last month to dismiss the suit. While the case is pending, the plaintiffs want Conti to order the government to provide immediate mental health treatment for veterans who say they are thinking of killing themselves and to spend another $60 million on health care.
The suit accuses the VA of arbitrarily denying care and benefits to wounded veterans, of forcing them to wait months for treatment and years for benefits, and of failing to provide fair procedures for appealing decisions against them.
The plaintiffs say that the department has a backlog of more than 600,000 disability claims and that 120 veterans a week commit suicide.
In his Jan. 10 ruling that allowed the suit to proceed, Conti said federal law entitles veterans to health care for a specific period after leaving the service, rejecting the government's argument that it was required to provide only as much care as the VA's budget allowed in a given year. A law that President Bush signed last week extended the period from two to five years.
In its latest filing, however, the Justice Department reiterated that Congress had intended "to authorize, but not require, medical care for veterans."
"This court should not interfere with the political branches' design, oversight and modification of VA programs," the government lawyers argued.
They also said the VA "is making great progress in addressing the mental health care needs of combat veterans." Among other things, they cited a law passed in November that required the department to establish a suicide-prevention program that includes making mental health care available around the clock.
The VA has hired nearly 3,800 mental health professionals in the last two years and has at least one specialist in post-traumatic stress disorder at each of its medical centers, the government said.
Since June, government lawyers said, the VA has had a policy that all veterans who seek or are referred for mental health care should be screened within 24 hours, that those found to be at risk of suicide should be treated immediately, and that others should be scheduled for full diagnosis and treatment planning within two weeks. A new suicide-prevention hot line has been responsible for "more than 380 rescues," the lawyers said.
Erspamer, the plaintiffs' lawyer, was unimpressed.
"Nowhere do I see any explanation of what kind of systems they have in place that deal with suicidal veterans," he said. "There's no excuse for not spending the money Congress told them to spend on mental health care and leaving $60 million on the table when people are going out and killing themselves."
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle .com.
http://sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? f=/c/a/2008/ 02/05/MNQLUQ4IS. DTL
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
VA Budget
VA to boost spending on combat vets by 21%
By Kelly Kennedy - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Feb 4, 2008 21:53:48 EST
After a year of news reports about a stubborn backlog of 400,000 disability benefits claims and combat veterans turned away from immediate mental health care, the Department of Veterans Affairs unveiled a proposed fiscal 2009 budget that would boost spending on programs for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by 21 percent and cut the disability claims backlog by 24 percent.
Spending on benefits and programs for the estimated 333,000 VA beneficiaries who are veterans of the current wars would increase by $216 million, to a total of $1.27 billion, over the current year. The 2009 budget also would include $3.9 million for mental health care services, a 9 percent increase over the current fiscal-year budget.
All told, VA is seeking $93.7 billion for fiscal 2009, with most of it going toward health care and disability compensation. Discretionary funding — mostly health care — would make up $47.2 billion of the budget, while $46.4 billion would go toward mandatory funding for compensation, education benefits, home loan guarantees, pensions and other benefits programs.
“If you look at health care, it’s more than double it was seven years ago,” said VA Secretary Dr. James Peake, praising the Bush Administration’s request for funding.
The request totals $3.4 billion more than this year’s budget, which was $6.6 billion more than in fiscal 2007 — after Congress added $3.7 billion to President Bush’s original request.
One of the biggest issues facing VA is overwhelmed case workers who can’t keep up with the thousands of new benefits claims that continue to pour in.
Rita Reese, principal deputy assistant secretary for management, said VA plans to increase the number of fulltime case workers from 14,857 to 15,570. She said the budget plan aims to reduce the disability claims backlog to 298,000 by the end of fiscal 2009, a drop of 24 percent.
She said the average length of time required to rule on an initial benefits claim will drop from the current 180 days to about 145 days, a 21 percent improvement over 2007.
One aspect of the VA budget proposal that is likely to draw controversy is a renewed call for an increase in pharmacy co-payments for veterans in the lowest priority patient groups, Priority 7 and 8 — a proposal that in the past has drawn criticism from veterans’ groups and rejection from Congress.
The co-pay would rise to $15 from the current $8 for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, who are considered “middle class” but may have incomes as low as $28,000. Most have medical conditions that are not service-connected.
One of the largest funding boosts for any single program category in the 2009 budget plan would be for long-term noninstitutional care, mainly home care, which would rise to about $762 million, a 28 percent increase over this fiscal year.
The 2009 VA budget plan also envisions the completion of a pilot program being conducted in collaboration with the Defense Department of a new disability evaluation system for wounded warriors at major medical facilities in the Washington, D.C., area.
That initiative is designed to eliminate the duplicative and often confusing elements of the current disability process of the two departments. The pilot program features one medical examination according to VA protocols and a single disability rating determined by VA.
By Kelly Kennedy - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Feb 4, 2008 21:53:48 EST
After a year of news reports about a stubborn backlog of 400,000 disability benefits claims and combat veterans turned away from immediate mental health care, the Department of Veterans Affairs unveiled a proposed fiscal 2009 budget that would boost spending on programs for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by 21 percent and cut the disability claims backlog by 24 percent.
Spending on benefits and programs for the estimated 333,000 VA beneficiaries who are veterans of the current wars would increase by $216 million, to a total of $1.27 billion, over the current year. The 2009 budget also would include $3.9 million for mental health care services, a 9 percent increase over the current fiscal-year budget.
All told, VA is seeking $93.7 billion for fiscal 2009, with most of it going toward health care and disability compensation. Discretionary funding — mostly health care — would make up $47.2 billion of the budget, while $46.4 billion would go toward mandatory funding for compensation, education benefits, home loan guarantees, pensions and other benefits programs.
“If you look at health care, it’s more than double it was seven years ago,” said VA Secretary Dr. James Peake, praising the Bush Administration’s request for funding.
The request totals $3.4 billion more than this year’s budget, which was $6.6 billion more than in fiscal 2007 — after Congress added $3.7 billion to President Bush’s original request.
One of the biggest issues facing VA is overwhelmed case workers who can’t keep up with the thousands of new benefits claims that continue to pour in.
Rita Reese, principal deputy assistant secretary for management, said VA plans to increase the number of fulltime case workers from 14,857 to 15,570. She said the budget plan aims to reduce the disability claims backlog to 298,000 by the end of fiscal 2009, a drop of 24 percent.
She said the average length of time required to rule on an initial benefits claim will drop from the current 180 days to about 145 days, a 21 percent improvement over 2007.
One aspect of the VA budget proposal that is likely to draw controversy is a renewed call for an increase in pharmacy co-payments for veterans in the lowest priority patient groups, Priority 7 and 8 — a proposal that in the past has drawn criticism from veterans’ groups and rejection from Congress.
The co-pay would rise to $15 from the current $8 for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, who are considered “middle class” but may have incomes as low as $28,000. Most have medical conditions that are not service-connected.
One of the largest funding boosts for any single program category in the 2009 budget plan would be for long-term noninstitutional care, mainly home care, which would rise to about $762 million, a 28 percent increase over this fiscal year.
The 2009 VA budget plan also envisions the completion of a pilot program being conducted in collaboration with the Defense Department of a new disability evaluation system for wounded warriors at major medical facilities in the Washington, D.C., area.
That initiative is designed to eliminate the duplicative and often confusing elements of the current disability process of the two departments. The pilot program features one medical examination according to VA protocols and a single disability rating determined by VA.
Contract - Helpful or Harmful
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 30, 2008
VA Awards Contract for Disability Benefits Studies
Virginia Company Awarded Contract
WASHINGTON – The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has awarded a $3.2 million contract to Economic Systems Inc. of Falls Church, Va., to develop information relating to possible changes in the composition of disability payments to disabled veterans.
“This contract is further evidence of VA’s commitment to review the full range of benefits and programs to ensure today’s disabled veterans receive the help they have earned,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake.
The contact is based upon recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission, which issued its final report in July 2007, and the October 2007 final report of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission.
The contractor will provide its findings in August. Economic Systems Inc. will address three basic research questions in two studies. One study will examine the nature and feasibility of making “long-term transition payments” to service members separated from the military due to disability while those veterans undergo rehabilitation.
A second study will provide information on the appropriate levels of compensation necessary to compensate for any loss in earnings capacity caused by service-incurred or service-aggravated conditions. It will also provide information on potential “quality of life” payments called for by both studies.
January 30, 2008
VA Awards Contract for Disability Benefits Studies
Virginia Company Awarded Contract
WASHINGTON – The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has awarded a $3.2 million contract to Economic Systems Inc. of Falls Church, Va., to develop information relating to possible changes in the composition of disability payments to disabled veterans.
“This contract is further evidence of VA’s commitment to review the full range of benefits and programs to ensure today’s disabled veterans receive the help they have earned,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake.
The contact is based upon recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission, which issued its final report in July 2007, and the October 2007 final report of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission.
The contractor will provide its findings in August. Economic Systems Inc. will address three basic research questions in two studies. One study will examine the nature and feasibility of making “long-term transition payments” to service members separated from the military due to disability while those veterans undergo rehabilitation.
A second study will provide information on the appropriate levels of compensation necessary to compensate for any loss in earnings capacity caused by service-incurred or service-aggravated conditions. It will also provide information on potential “quality of life” payments called for by both studies.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Another Disgraceful Action
Way to go Montel and thank you for years of service... Shame on FOX & CBS. Fox and most News shows don't care about the truth or the real issues & news
It's about ratings & celebrities. ... every vet should call their local stations and complain about
celebrity news.... who cares which celebrity is pregnant? is arrested? married? NO Spin zone..Indeed. .what a Joke.
CBS TV Distribution confirmed Wednesday it will end production on the syndicated yakker at the end of this season. CBS plans to offer stations a "Best of Montel" package for the fall that will feature segs from throughout the show's run.
Fate of "The Montel Williams Show" was sealed when key Fox-owned stations opted not to renew it for the 2008-09 season. But a number of other stations had cleared the show for next season, prompting CBS to offer the "Best of" package. The rerun package is sold on an all-cash basis, which is a boon to stations that had been handing over 3½ minutes of barter ad time per seg to CBS for the firstrun episodes.
"Stations continue to embrace Montel and the message of social responsibility that has been the cornerstone of his show," said CBS TV Distribution prexy and chief operating officer John Nogawski.
Williams, a former military officer, launched his yakker in New York and a handful of other markets in 1991. Show was picked up for national distribution by Viacom the following year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Parkertwo [mailto:parkertwo@ roadrunner. com]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:32 PM
To: Undisclosed- Recipient: ;
Subject: Montel Williams Loses Job after Defending Troops on Fox News
Montel Williams Loses Job after Defending Troops on Fox News
by Brandon Friedman
Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:39:14 PM PST
For just over three minutes on Saturday morning, TV talk show host Montel Williams owned the hosts of Fox and Friends. A former Marine and Naval officer, Montel lectured the stunned hosts on the stupidity of spending air time on the death of Heath Ledger, rather than covering the war in Iraq. It was a spectacle rarely seen on live cable television, as Montel exposed and condemned both tabloid "news" shows and much of American culture for what they have each become: shallow and greedy.
Three minutes into this awkward segment on Fox, one host cut off Montel in order to go to a commercial. Montel did not return after the break. Four days later, after 17 years as a television host, Montel lost his job. Variety reported on Wednesday that the
Fate of "The Montel Williams Show" was sealed when key Fox-owned stations opted not to renew it for the 2008-09 season.
Here is the video: on the site link attached http://www.dailykos .com/story/ 2008/1/31/ 23326/1083/ 699/446791
::
I have no idea whether Montel already knew his show wasn’t going to be renewed, and thus felt emboldened to cut loose on the air, or whether his firing was a result of his actions on Saturday. Either way, Montel Williams exhibited courage this week that few in the television industry ever will. And for that, American troops around the world stand with him. We support him not only because he stood up for the troops, but because he did it on Fox News—a station that has done more damage to the U.S. military since 9/11 than any other.
Montel Williams is an American patriot. Though he left the military years ago, he has never forgotten "his" troops.
For that we salute and thank you, Montel. Best of luck with whatever you choose to do next.
It's about ratings & celebrities. ... every vet should call their local stations and complain about
celebrity news.... who cares which celebrity is pregnant? is arrested? married? NO Spin zone..Indeed. .what a Joke.
CBS TV Distribution confirmed Wednesday it will end production on the syndicated yakker at the end of this season. CBS plans to offer stations a "Best of Montel" package for the fall that will feature segs from throughout the show's run.
Fate of "The Montel Williams Show" was sealed when key Fox-owned stations opted not to renew it for the 2008-09 season. But a number of other stations had cleared the show for next season, prompting CBS to offer the "Best of" package. The rerun package is sold on an all-cash basis, which is a boon to stations that had been handing over 3½ minutes of barter ad time per seg to CBS for the firstrun episodes.
"Stations continue to embrace Montel and the message of social responsibility that has been the cornerstone of his show," said CBS TV Distribution prexy and chief operating officer John Nogawski.
Williams, a former military officer, launched his yakker in New York and a handful of other markets in 1991. Show was picked up for national distribution by Viacom the following year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Parkertwo [mailto:parkertwo@ roadrunner. com]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:32 PM
To: Undisclosed- Recipient: ;
Subject: Montel Williams Loses Job after Defending Troops on Fox News
Montel Williams Loses Job after Defending Troops on Fox News
by Brandon Friedman
Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:39:14 PM PST
For just over three minutes on Saturday morning, TV talk show host Montel Williams owned the hosts of Fox and Friends. A former Marine and Naval officer, Montel lectured the stunned hosts on the stupidity of spending air time on the death of Heath Ledger, rather than covering the war in Iraq. It was a spectacle rarely seen on live cable television, as Montel exposed and condemned both tabloid "news" shows and much of American culture for what they have each become: shallow and greedy.
Three minutes into this awkward segment on Fox, one host cut off Montel in order to go to a commercial. Montel did not return after the break. Four days later, after 17 years as a television host, Montel lost his job. Variety reported on Wednesday that the
Fate of "The Montel Williams Show" was sealed when key Fox-owned stations opted not to renew it for the 2008-09 season.
Here is the video: on the site link attached http://www.dailykos .com/story/ 2008/1/31/ 23326/1083/ 699/446791
::
I have no idea whether Montel already knew his show wasn’t going to be renewed, and thus felt emboldened to cut loose on the air, or whether his firing was a result of his actions on Saturday. Either way, Montel Williams exhibited courage this week that few in the television industry ever will. And for that, American troops around the world stand with him. We support him not only because he stood up for the troops, but because he did it on Fox News—a station that has done more damage to the U.S. military since 9/11 than any other.
Montel Williams is an American patriot. Though he left the military years ago, he has never forgotten "his" troops.
For that we salute and thank you, Montel. Best of luck with whatever you choose to do next.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Mexican Denistry
OUR VETERANS AND MEXICAN DENISTRY
BY: ROCKY STONE
Under current VA Regulations a veteran can not get dental care at a VA facility unless that veteran is either 100% Service Connected, a former Prisoner of War (POW) or has sustained a dental injury, which must be noted in the veteran’s military medical records, while in service. This regulation causes thousands of veterans each year to go without needed dental care unless they have private insurance that covers their dental needs or they go to one of the many Mexican dental clinics which offer cut rate prices for dental work.
In a recent article by Robin Emmett, published in Reuters and MSNBC News stories, Feb. 1 2008, the author speaks about the thousands of Americans who seek dental care across the border in dental clinics, many of which are located in areas of high crime created by the drug wars. These clinics are, also, noted to have poor hygiene; yet, due to the high cost of dental treatment in the U.S. many Americans forego the risk of becoming victims of crime, a disease or infection to seek dental treatment that is affordable in Mexico. Sadly, many of these Americans are retired military veterans who can not, due to regulation, receive dental care at the VA dental clinics located within the VA hospitals across the nation.
One such veteran is 62 year old Al Undiemi, a retired Sergeant First Class with 21 ½ years service in the U.S. Army. Al, a veteran of the Vietnam War, who was one of six survivors from his platoon, along with this writer, from the 173rd Airborne Brigade in the Battle for Hill 875 in 1967, retired from the Army in 1988. Upon his retirement, Al was never advised by the military that he could seek medical attention from the VA. Recently, Al has been plagued with various medical problems, including a tooth ache, the inability to breathe, swallow, and properly digest his food, constant heart burn and other problems; therefore, acting upon my advice, Al sought assistance from the VA Medical Center located in Temple Texas.
“I told the doctors what my symptoms were the first time I went to the VA”, Al states, “and the doctor told me that it might be my tooth causing my problems.” The doctor informed Al that he might go to a civilian dentist and get his tooth pulled. “I told the doctor that I could not afford to go to a civilian dentist as my only income was my military retirement and social security and that I had no insurance. The doctor told me I could go to Mexico and have my tooth pulled,” Al states.
Al once again returns to the VA after having been given antibiotics on his first trip in an attempt to clear up the infected tooth but to no avail. Still suffering from multiple symptoms and the throbbing tooth ache Al relates, “I went back to the VA the 2nd time and was once again told by the VA staff to go to Mexico and get my tooth pulled. I was given more antibiotics, which were not doing me any good and which I was paying for under the Tri-Care program for retired veterans. The medications were costing me money each month but I was getting no help for my problem, my tooth.”
In Jan. 2008 Al, once again returns to the VA Medical Center in Temple Texas still suffering from the pain and symptoms caused by his infected tooth. Once again when Al sees the doctor and nurse he had seen previously Al was given the same medical advice. “Once again the doctor tells me to go to Mexico and get my tooth pulled,” relates Al. “The doctor told me that I needed to get my tooth pulled as soon as possible or my health would get worse and that I could even die from my infected tooth, but they could not help me at the VA due to regulations, that I had to be 100% disabled or a former POW to get dental treatment at the VA.”
One of the nurses, who had seen Al at the VA Medical Center, told him of her husband who was a retired Air Force veteran who had to go to Mexico for his dental work due to not being able to get it done at the VA in which she worked. Another nurse at the VA told Al of her daughter who she took to Mexico to get dental work done. This nurse related to Al that her daughter received work that would have cost approximately $4000 in the U.S. for $1400 in Mexico. All of these VA employees suggested that Al go to Mexico for his dental needs.
The cost of dental care in the U.S. is on the rise due to the cost of operation, insurance and supplies. The cost is come prohibited to more and more Americans daily. Dentist in Mexico are flocking to the border towns where Americans are crossing the border daily for dental care. The cost of dental care in the U.S. can be four times that in Mexico.
The dental care in Mexico does not come without risks. Many of the hundreds of dental clinics, ranging from dingy dives to posh parlor like establishments, popping up in border towns such as Ciudad Juarez, El Paso, Del Rio and Laredo, just to name a few are located in areas that requires patrons to travel through areas infested with prostitutes, drug dealers, gang members and petty thieves. It stands to reason that these types will haunt the areas where dental clinics are located as they realize that Americans with money in their pockets will be traveling across the border to seek dental care.
Then there is, also, the risk of infection caused by unsanitary conditions noted in some of these clinics. Health standards are not like those required in the U.S. and many of these fly-by-night clinics are not, perhaps, even run by certified dentist with the appropriate training. There is no way for the unsuspecting American to know just who it is that is working on their teeth.
This brings us to legal consideration, who is legally responsible if something goes wrong? The Mexican dentists are not required to be covered by the insurance dentist in the U.S. are required so if something goes wrong U.S. citizens will probably have no legal recourse. There are American dentist in Mexico conducting business but I doubt they carry any insurance either. One such dentist is Joe Andel and his wife Jessica. “We’ve gone from a handful of patients when we started 2 ½ years ago to 150 new patients a month”, said Joe in his interview with the author of the Reuters article. Joe and his wife own the Rio Dental clinic in Ciuded Juarez which uses U.S. labs to make the crowns used in their practice. Joe states that he will even pick up his patients at the El Paso airport to get their business. Joe states that he has treated people from as far away as Alaska and Hawaii.
The fact that American citizens are going to Mexico is due to our economic situation here in the U.S. and there is little that can be done about that, although it is a shame that the richest country in the world has it’s people going to a foreign county for health care services, and not just dental. However, in this writer’s opinion, who is a Vietnam veteran himself, it is a crime that our American veterans are forced by our economic situation to resort to such action. Our veterans who have served this country with honor should be taken care of when they need medical and/or dental care but that is simply not happening. Our retired veterans, all with over 20 years of service to our nation, are left out when it comes to receiving dental care from the Veterans Administration. They can not even go to the VA Dental Clinics and pay for dental care, they must seek it elsewhere, even, it appears, in Mexico.
Our nation should insist that our veterans are cared for. It is to our veterans and active duty military personnel that we owe our freedom. Do we care so little for their contributions to our nation’s security that we send them into a foreign land to seek dental health care? Do we care so little about our veterans that we as a nation will stand by and watch them forced, due to their economic situation, into the alley ways and crime infested streets of a foreign land to get the care they should be provided in U.S. VA hospitals? It appears that is the case. Fellow citizens this says to us, the veterans of this country that our nation does not care once our active service is over.
Those individuals who aspire to join the military and serve their nation are watching what is happening to our veterans. These young citizens may decide that they do not wish to be treated the way our veterans are treated when they become veterans, thus, may chose not to serve. What happens to our nation when no one joins the military? Do we go back to the draft? Do we go to mandatory service in the military for a specific number of years? This is already being talked about in Congress. A Bill has already been introduced making it mandatory to serve in the military and covers everyone from the ages of 18 to 42.
It is time for our nation’s leaders to wake up; it is time for our nation’s people to wake up and realize that without the military we will lose all that we have. If we as a nation do not insure that our nation’s veterans are taken care of then we may soon be lost as a free people. People are watching you who serve in the Congress and Senate, we are watching how you treat those who serve us all and continue to keep us free. As our military and veterans go so goes our nation.
BY: ROCKY STONE
Under current VA Regulations a veteran can not get dental care at a VA facility unless that veteran is either 100% Service Connected, a former Prisoner of War (POW) or has sustained a dental injury, which must be noted in the veteran’s military medical records, while in service. This regulation causes thousands of veterans each year to go without needed dental care unless they have private insurance that covers their dental needs or they go to one of the many Mexican dental clinics which offer cut rate prices for dental work.
In a recent article by Robin Emmett, published in Reuters and MSNBC News stories, Feb. 1 2008, the author speaks about the thousands of Americans who seek dental care across the border in dental clinics, many of which are located in areas of high crime created by the drug wars. These clinics are, also, noted to have poor hygiene; yet, due to the high cost of dental treatment in the U.S. many Americans forego the risk of becoming victims of crime, a disease or infection to seek dental treatment that is affordable in Mexico. Sadly, many of these Americans are retired military veterans who can not, due to regulation, receive dental care at the VA dental clinics located within the VA hospitals across the nation.
One such veteran is 62 year old Al Undiemi, a retired Sergeant First Class with 21 ½ years service in the U.S. Army. Al, a veteran of the Vietnam War, who was one of six survivors from his platoon, along with this writer, from the 173rd Airborne Brigade in the Battle for Hill 875 in 1967, retired from the Army in 1988. Upon his retirement, Al was never advised by the military that he could seek medical attention from the VA. Recently, Al has been plagued with various medical problems, including a tooth ache, the inability to breathe, swallow, and properly digest his food, constant heart burn and other problems; therefore, acting upon my advice, Al sought assistance from the VA Medical Center located in Temple Texas.
“I told the doctors what my symptoms were the first time I went to the VA”, Al states, “and the doctor told me that it might be my tooth causing my problems.” The doctor informed Al that he might go to a civilian dentist and get his tooth pulled. “I told the doctor that I could not afford to go to a civilian dentist as my only income was my military retirement and social security and that I had no insurance. The doctor told me I could go to Mexico and have my tooth pulled,” Al states.
Al once again returns to the VA after having been given antibiotics on his first trip in an attempt to clear up the infected tooth but to no avail. Still suffering from multiple symptoms and the throbbing tooth ache Al relates, “I went back to the VA the 2nd time and was once again told by the VA staff to go to Mexico and get my tooth pulled. I was given more antibiotics, which were not doing me any good and which I was paying for under the Tri-Care program for retired veterans. The medications were costing me money each month but I was getting no help for my problem, my tooth.”
In Jan. 2008 Al, once again returns to the VA Medical Center in Temple Texas still suffering from the pain and symptoms caused by his infected tooth. Once again when Al sees the doctor and nurse he had seen previously Al was given the same medical advice. “Once again the doctor tells me to go to Mexico and get my tooth pulled,” relates Al. “The doctor told me that I needed to get my tooth pulled as soon as possible or my health would get worse and that I could even die from my infected tooth, but they could not help me at the VA due to regulations, that I had to be 100% disabled or a former POW to get dental treatment at the VA.”
One of the nurses, who had seen Al at the VA Medical Center, told him of her husband who was a retired Air Force veteran who had to go to Mexico for his dental work due to not being able to get it done at the VA in which she worked. Another nurse at the VA told Al of her daughter who she took to Mexico to get dental work done. This nurse related to Al that her daughter received work that would have cost approximately $4000 in the U.S. for $1400 in Mexico. All of these VA employees suggested that Al go to Mexico for his dental needs.
The cost of dental care in the U.S. is on the rise due to the cost of operation, insurance and supplies. The cost is come prohibited to more and more Americans daily. Dentist in Mexico are flocking to the border towns where Americans are crossing the border daily for dental care. The cost of dental care in the U.S. can be four times that in Mexico.
The dental care in Mexico does not come without risks. Many of the hundreds of dental clinics, ranging from dingy dives to posh parlor like establishments, popping up in border towns such as Ciudad Juarez, El Paso, Del Rio and Laredo, just to name a few are located in areas that requires patrons to travel through areas infested with prostitutes, drug dealers, gang members and petty thieves. It stands to reason that these types will haunt the areas where dental clinics are located as they realize that Americans with money in their pockets will be traveling across the border to seek dental care.
Then there is, also, the risk of infection caused by unsanitary conditions noted in some of these clinics. Health standards are not like those required in the U.S. and many of these fly-by-night clinics are not, perhaps, even run by certified dentist with the appropriate training. There is no way for the unsuspecting American to know just who it is that is working on their teeth.
This brings us to legal consideration, who is legally responsible if something goes wrong? The Mexican dentists are not required to be covered by the insurance dentist in the U.S. are required so if something goes wrong U.S. citizens will probably have no legal recourse. There are American dentist in Mexico conducting business but I doubt they carry any insurance either. One such dentist is Joe Andel and his wife Jessica. “We’ve gone from a handful of patients when we started 2 ½ years ago to 150 new patients a month”, said Joe in his interview with the author of the Reuters article. Joe and his wife own the Rio Dental clinic in Ciuded Juarez which uses U.S. labs to make the crowns used in their practice. Joe states that he will even pick up his patients at the El Paso airport to get their business. Joe states that he has treated people from as far away as Alaska and Hawaii.
The fact that American citizens are going to Mexico is due to our economic situation here in the U.S. and there is little that can be done about that, although it is a shame that the richest country in the world has it’s people going to a foreign county for health care services, and not just dental. However, in this writer’s opinion, who is a Vietnam veteran himself, it is a crime that our American veterans are forced by our economic situation to resort to such action. Our veterans who have served this country with honor should be taken care of when they need medical and/or dental care but that is simply not happening. Our retired veterans, all with over 20 years of service to our nation, are left out when it comes to receiving dental care from the Veterans Administration. They can not even go to the VA Dental Clinics and pay for dental care, they must seek it elsewhere, even, it appears, in Mexico.
Our nation should insist that our veterans are cared for. It is to our veterans and active duty military personnel that we owe our freedom. Do we care so little for their contributions to our nation’s security that we send them into a foreign land to seek dental health care? Do we care so little about our veterans that we as a nation will stand by and watch them forced, due to their economic situation, into the alley ways and crime infested streets of a foreign land to get the care they should be provided in U.S. VA hospitals? It appears that is the case. Fellow citizens this says to us, the veterans of this country that our nation does not care once our active service is over.
Those individuals who aspire to join the military and serve their nation are watching what is happening to our veterans. These young citizens may decide that they do not wish to be treated the way our veterans are treated when they become veterans, thus, may chose not to serve. What happens to our nation when no one joins the military? Do we go back to the draft? Do we go to mandatory service in the military for a specific number of years? This is already being talked about in Congress. A Bill has already been introduced making it mandatory to serve in the military and covers everyone from the ages of 18 to 42.
It is time for our nation’s leaders to wake up; it is time for our nation’s people to wake up and realize that without the military we will lose all that we have. If we as a nation do not insure that our nation’s veterans are taken care of then we may soon be lost as a free people. People are watching you who serve in the Congress and Senate, we are watching how you treat those who serve us all and continue to keep us free. As our military and veterans go so goes our nation.
Agent Orange BVA Decisions
from Col Dan
AGENT ORANGE ASSOCIATED DISORDERS APPROVED BVA DECISIONS OUTSIDE OF VIETNAM
Lot of good AO info at: http://www.2ndbatta lion94thartiller y.com/Chas/ LinkToxicChemica l.htm
Go to web site below: BVA DECISIONS OUTSIDE OF VIETNAM
http://www.2ndbatta lion94thartiller y.com/Chas/ guambva.htm
IN ORDER BELOW OF:
GUAM - DIABETES TYPE II
Thailand - malignant lymphoma
Okinawa - PROSTATE CANCER
AGENT ORANGE ASSOCIATED DISORDERS APPROVED BVA DECISIONS OUTSIDE OF VIETNAM
Lot of good AO info at: http://www.2ndbatta lion94thartiller y.com/Chas/ LinkToxicChemica l.htm
Go to web site below: BVA DECISIONS OUTSIDE OF VIETNAM
http://www.2ndbatta lion94thartiller y.com/Chas/ guambva.htm
IN ORDER BELOW OF:
GUAM - DIABETES TYPE II
Thailand - malignant lymphoma
Okinawa - PROSTATE CANCER
Friday, February 1, 2008
News on Personality Disorder Discharges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Col. Dan,
As you know, there have been numerous cases of pre-existing personality disorder discharges. I was glad to see this email that I received this morning and wanted to pass it along:
GA Committee: Just received confirmation from Senator Feingold's office that H.R. 4986, The FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, did, indeed, include S. 1817 (H.R. 3167), Proper Administration of the Discharge of Members of the Armed Forces for Personality Disorder. S. 1817 was offered as an amendment to both H.R. 1585 and H.R. 4986 by Senator Obama, and it was accepted by unanimous consent. It appeared in both the vetoed H.R. 1585 and the signed H.R. 4986 as Section 597. Therefore it is now law. Note that in Parts (a) (2) (C) and (D), it mandates policies and measures prohibiting discharges for personality disorder and that those "who may have been so separated from the Armed Forces should be provided with expedited review by the applicable board for the correction of military records."
Ron Scott, Chair
SEC. 597. REPORTS ON ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR PERSONALITY DISORDER.
(a) Secretary of Defense Report on Administrative Separations Based on Personality Disorder-
(1) REPORT REQUIRED- Not later than April 1, 2008, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on all cases of administrative separation from the Armed Forces of covered members of the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder.
(2) ELEMENTS- The report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) A statement of the total number of cases, by Armed Force, in which covered members of the Armed Forces have been separated from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder, and an identification of the various forms of personality disorder forming the basis for such separations.
(B) A statement of the total number of cases, by Armed Force, in which covered members of the Armed Forces who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2001 have been separated from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder, and the identification of the various forms of personality disorder forming the basis for such separations.
(C) A summary of the policies, by Armed Force, controlling administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces based on personality disorder, and an evaluation of the adequacy of such policies for ensuring that covered members of the Armed Forces who may be eligible for disability evaluation due to mental health conditions are not separated from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder.
(D) A discussion of measures being implemented to ensure that members of the Armed Forces who should be evaluated for disability separation or retirement due to mental health conditions are not processed for separation from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder, and recommendations regarding how members of the Armed Forces who may have been so separated from the Armed Forces should be provided with expedited review by the applicable board for the correction of military records.
(b) Comptroller General Report on Policies on Administrative Separation Based on Personality Disorder-
(1) REPORT REQUIRED- Not later than June 1, 2008, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the policies and procedures of the Department of Defense and of the military departments relating to the separation of members of the Armed Forces based on a personality disorder.
(2) ELEMENTS- The report required by paragraph (1) shall--
(A) include an audit of a sampling of cases to determine the validity and clinical efficacy of the policies and procedures referred to in paragraph (1) and the extent, if any, of the divergence between the terms of such policies and procedures and the implementation of such policies and procedures; and
(B) include a determination by the Comptroller General of whether, and to what extent, the policies and procedures referred to in paragraph (1)--
(i) deviate from standard clinical diagnostic practices and current clinical standards; and
(ii) provide adequate safeguards aimed at ensuring that members of the Armed Forces who suffer from mental health conditions (including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or traumatic brain injury) resulting from service in a combat zone are not separated from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder.
(3) ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION METHOD- In lieu of submitting a separate report under this subsection, the Comptroller may include the evaluation, audit and determination required by this subsection as part of the study of mental health services required by section 723 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118 Stat. 1989).
(c) Covered Member of the Armed Forces Defined- In this section, the term `covered member of the Armed Forces' includes the following:
(1) Any member of a regular component of the Armed Forces who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan since October 2001.
(2) Any member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan since October 2001
Inga Guenther
Proud Army Wife of Scot
Proud Army Mom of Andrew
Proud Marine Mom of Clayton
www.militaryspouses forchange. com
Col. Dan,
As you know, there have been numerous cases of pre-existing personality disorder discharges. I was glad to see this email that I received this morning and wanted to pass it along:
GA Committee: Just received confirmation from Senator Feingold's office that H.R. 4986, The FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, did, indeed, include S. 1817 (H.R. 3167), Proper Administration of the Discharge of Members of the Armed Forces for Personality Disorder. S. 1817 was offered as an amendment to both H.R. 1585 and H.R. 4986 by Senator Obama, and it was accepted by unanimous consent. It appeared in both the vetoed H.R. 1585 and the signed H.R. 4986 as Section 597. Therefore it is now law. Note that in Parts (a) (2) (C) and (D), it mandates policies and measures prohibiting discharges for personality disorder and that those "who may have been so separated from the Armed Forces should be provided with expedited review by the applicable board for the correction of military records."
Ron Scott, Chair
SEC. 597. REPORTS ON ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR PERSONALITY DISORDER.
(a) Secretary of Defense Report on Administrative Separations Based on Personality Disorder-
(1) REPORT REQUIRED- Not later than April 1, 2008, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on all cases of administrative separation from the Armed Forces of covered members of the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder.
(2) ELEMENTS- The report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) A statement of the total number of cases, by Armed Force, in which covered members of the Armed Forces have been separated from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder, and an identification of the various forms of personality disorder forming the basis for such separations.
(B) A statement of the total number of cases, by Armed Force, in which covered members of the Armed Forces who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2001 have been separated from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder, and the identification of the various forms of personality disorder forming the basis for such separations.
(C) A summary of the policies, by Armed Force, controlling administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces based on personality disorder, and an evaluation of the adequacy of such policies for ensuring that covered members of the Armed Forces who may be eligible for disability evaluation due to mental health conditions are not separated from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder.
(D) A discussion of measures being implemented to ensure that members of the Armed Forces who should be evaluated for disability separation or retirement due to mental health conditions are not processed for separation from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder, and recommendations regarding how members of the Armed Forces who may have been so separated from the Armed Forces should be provided with expedited review by the applicable board for the correction of military records.
(b) Comptroller General Report on Policies on Administrative Separation Based on Personality Disorder-
(1) REPORT REQUIRED- Not later than June 1, 2008, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the policies and procedures of the Department of Defense and of the military departments relating to the separation of members of the Armed Forces based on a personality disorder.
(2) ELEMENTS- The report required by paragraph (1) shall--
(A) include an audit of a sampling of cases to determine the validity and clinical efficacy of the policies and procedures referred to in paragraph (1) and the extent, if any, of the divergence between the terms of such policies and procedures and the implementation of such policies and procedures; and
(B) include a determination by the Comptroller General of whether, and to what extent, the policies and procedures referred to in paragraph (1)--
(i) deviate from standard clinical diagnostic practices and current clinical standards; and
(ii) provide adequate safeguards aimed at ensuring that members of the Armed Forces who suffer from mental health conditions (including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or traumatic brain injury) resulting from service in a combat zone are not separated from the Armed Forces on the basis of a personality disorder.
(3) ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION METHOD- In lieu of submitting a separate report under this subsection, the Comptroller may include the evaluation, audit and determination required by this subsection as part of the study of mental health services required by section 723 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118 Stat. 1989).
(c) Covered Member of the Armed Forces Defined- In this section, the term `covered member of the Armed Forces' includes the following:
(1) Any member of a regular component of the Armed Forces who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan since October 2001.
(2) Any member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan since October 2001
Inga Guenther
Proud Army Wife of Scot
Proud Army Mom of Andrew
Proud Marine Mom of Clayton
www.militaryspouses forchange. com
In Harms Way from Our Own
The U.S. Congress "to harm" Ignored.
U. S. Senate Background.
In 2008, despite the efforts of some, the U.S. Congress still treats
as an "incident to service" [1] the U.S. Senate’s DOD "experiments
that were designed to harm" [7]! "III. Findings and conclusions" , "K.
DOD and DVA have repeatedly failed to provide information and medical
followup to those who participate in military research..." and "N.
Participation in military research is rarely included in military
medical records, making it impossible to support a veteran’s claim for
service-connected disabilities from military research." By their
inaction Congress has approved the Report’s: "Introduction" A. "During
the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel have
been involved in human experimentation and other intentional exposures
conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD), often without a
servicemember' s knowledge or consent.", B. "most Americans would agree
that the use of soldiers as unwitting guinea pigs in experiments that
were designed to harm them, at least temporarily, is not ethical." And
"Forward" C. " The findings and conclusions contained in this report
are those of the majority staff and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs." Chairman.
Thereby, DOD & VA Healthcare System to-date covered up are these
experiments and prevented is treatment as documented by the 1994 U.S.
Senate Report.[7] The disagreeing "views" resulted in the 2008
continuing on the general public is a version of the DOD Project 112
biological lessons learned.[8] This is by the 19 December 2006
established civilian "Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority (BARDA)".[10] Under the cover of its "national security
missions", as it is for military personnel, withheld from the civilian
"guinea pigs" are the cause and effects of its "Biomedical Advanced
Research and Development" (R&D) Projects.
Order Ignored!
From 1953 the U.S. Senate "to harm" lessons learned were in direct
disobedience of the DOD Secretary's TOP SECRET order. Forty one (41)
years earlier it required the U.S. Senate’s 1994 "servicemember' s
knowledge" and "consent". [3] 1953 known by the Secretary's of all
Services, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and their R&D Board. It was
"UNCLASSIFIED" in 1975. Nineteen (19) years later, during the U.S.
Senate’s reported past 50 years, most of the "to harm" service records
were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC)
fire. Those that survived had all witnesses censored by Congress’s
1974 Privacy Act! The "Veterans Right to Know Act" was proposed in the
2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. It never became law.
The U.S. Supreme Court Did Not Know?
The 1987 U.S. Supreme Court Stanley decision [4] extends the coverage
of their 1950 Feres Case that a death by a military barracks fire was
an "incident to service" [1]. Stanley treats the 1958 DOD
"experiments. ..designed to harm" disobedience of the 1953 order [3] as
also an "incident to service"! To-date not accomplished is the Senate
Report’s correcting, "IV. Recommendations. G. The Feres Doctrine
should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by
inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been
given." A few in Congress made certain that the in-the-record
revealing evidence will not be addressed. The year following STANLEY
was the 1988 Veterans’ Judicial Review Act. Established was the
Veteran’s Legislative severely restricted, Article I Court. "The court
may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the
policies underlying the schedule.", i.e., the order ignored "to harm"
R&D experimental effects and their causes! The Veterans Court Chief Judge's no teeth statement with his VA ignoring of the Court’s decisions! [6] The
Secretary of the VA was given Final Decision authority on these
issues. [9] Included is the power of NO APPEAL to this LEGISLATIVE
Veterans Court or to the independent U.S. Judicial Branch Courts. If
allowed an APPEAL, it is not part of the record at the Article I
Veterans Court. The evidence is also missing at the next level U.S.
Judicial Branch Article III, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
All Is In-The-Record!
Each Executive Branch (DOD, CIA & BARDA) Project completes the R&D
process. The prior lessons learned are reviewed. The then Scope of
Work defines what the experiment is "designed" to do. The how, where,
when and who is identified. The conducted researched cause and effects
are closely followed. From the results are developed safe production,
use, the needed for treatment and protection, e.g., the DOD
manufacturers handling of hazardous materials such as Depleted
Uranium, Agent Orange, the biological agents of Project 112 [8] and
the jet-engine noise levels of Project 7210 [2]. All is in the
Executive Branch record! Under the cover of national security the
revealing treatment evidence: 1. Is not cause identified in a
subject’s Medical History, so that they never the wiser become. The
deceived victim’s "to harm" effects are not Medical History recorded,
therefore not addressed! Prevented is any follow up by independent
civilian and Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) physicians. And 2. For veterans’ the 64 years
of experiment specific injuries are not in the VA "schedule of ratings
for disabilities" [6]!
Why "may not review"?
May not be reviewed records prevent medical, administrative and
judicial "activities" that "would be detrimental to the accomplishment
of...mission. " This is by the still in 2008 reasoning of "it was
necessary to conceal these activities from the american public in
general, because public knowledge of the unethical and illicit
activities would have serious repercussions in political and
diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of
its mission." U.S. Supreme Court 1987 Stanley Case; Footnote 4, Page
688 on its proven 1958 CIA experiment on U.S. Army personnel. [4]
"Right to Know".
There now is no 64 years later "Veterans Right to Know". After they
complete Honorable Service despite the efforts of some Congress has
not given back to veterans their rights. Revealed would be the few’s
corrupt for the greater good of all. Accomplished by the end justifies
the "designed to harm" means. Carried out under the cover of our
nation’s wars! A few key members in Congress, have dishonored those
that serve. Lost are those prior to service rights that convicted
rapists and murderers keep! [5]
Hold Responsible.
Now BARDA Experiments Conducted on You! Please, Hold Your Members in
the U.S. Congress Accountable! These U.S. Supreme Court and U.S.
Senate Documented Facts Are Internet Censored.[11] Passing this on to
Others So That They May Do the Same Would Be Appreciated. Thank You.
David H. Marshall
REFERENCES:
[1] U.S. Supreme Court, Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).
[2] USAF Project 7210 "A Compilation of Turbojet Noise Data", Bolt
Beranek & Newman, Inc. Cambridge 38, MA. Sound pressure levels for all
jet-engines in-service. Conducted at Wright Patterson Air Force Base,
Dayton, Ohio in 1952. 1954 logged in as the 401st report for that year
published as Report 54-401 July 1956
[3] DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human
experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A.
Grodin, "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in
Human Experimentation" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). In
Reference [8] as NOTES 72, 168 & 169.
[4] U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 1987, U.S. V. Stanley, 107 S. Ct.
3054 (Volume 483 U.S., Section 669, Pages 699 to 710). In Reference
[8] Cited in Note 169.
[5] U.S. State Dept., "U.S. Report under the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Art. 7".
[6] Chief Judge Frank Q. Nebeker, State of the Court for Presentation
to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals Third Judicial
Conference October 17-18, 1994. In the Veterans Appeals Reporter.
www.firebase. net/state_of_ court_brief. htm Annual Judicial Conference
Transcript. www.goodnet. com/~heads/ nebeker
[7] U.S. Senate December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research
Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century."
Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 103rd
Congress 2nd Session. With NOTES 1 to 170. Committee Print - S. Print.
103-97.
[8] "Project 112 (Including Project SHAD) Home" chemical and
biological experiments; www. 1.va.gov/shad/
[9] United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the
Secretary; finality. http://www.law. cornell.edu/
[10] "Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)" S-3678.
U. S. Senate Background.
In 2008, despite the efforts of some, the U.S. Congress still treats
as an "incident to service" [1] the U.S. Senate’s DOD "experiments
that were designed to harm" [7]! "III. Findings and conclusions" , "K.
DOD and DVA have repeatedly failed to provide information and medical
followup to those who participate in military research..." and "N.
Participation in military research is rarely included in military
medical records, making it impossible to support a veteran’s claim for
service-connected disabilities from military research." By their
inaction Congress has approved the Report’s: "Introduction" A. "During
the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel have
been involved in human experimentation and other intentional exposures
conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD), often without a
servicemember' s knowledge or consent.", B. "most Americans would agree
that the use of soldiers as unwitting guinea pigs in experiments that
were designed to harm them, at least temporarily, is not ethical." And
"Forward" C. " The findings and conclusions contained in this report
are those of the majority staff and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs." Chairman.
Thereby, DOD & VA Healthcare System to-date covered up are these
experiments and prevented is treatment as documented by the 1994 U.S.
Senate Report.[7] The disagreeing "views" resulted in the 2008
continuing on the general public is a version of the DOD Project 112
biological lessons learned.[8] This is by the 19 December 2006
established civilian "Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority (BARDA)".[10] Under the cover of its "national security
missions", as it is for military personnel, withheld from the civilian
"guinea pigs" are the cause and effects of its "Biomedical Advanced
Research and Development" (R&D) Projects.
Order Ignored!
From 1953 the U.S. Senate "to harm" lessons learned were in direct
disobedience of the DOD Secretary's TOP SECRET order. Forty one (41)
years earlier it required the U.S. Senate’s 1994 "servicemember' s
knowledge" and "consent". [3] 1953 known by the Secretary's of all
Services, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and their R&D Board. It was
"UNCLASSIFIED" in 1975. Nineteen (19) years later, during the U.S.
Senate’s reported past 50 years, most of the "to harm" service records
were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC)
fire. Those that survived had all witnesses censored by Congress’s
1974 Privacy Act! The "Veterans Right to Know Act" was proposed in the
2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. It never became law.
The U.S. Supreme Court Did Not Know?
The 1987 U.S. Supreme Court Stanley decision [4] extends the coverage
of their 1950 Feres Case that a death by a military barracks fire was
an "incident to service" [1]. Stanley treats the 1958 DOD
"experiments. ..designed to harm" disobedience of the 1953 order [3] as
also an "incident to service"! To-date not accomplished is the Senate
Report’s correcting, "IV. Recommendations. G. The Feres Doctrine
should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by
inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been
given." A few in Congress made certain that the in-the-record
revealing evidence will not be addressed. The year following STANLEY
was the 1988 Veterans’ Judicial Review Act. Established was the
Veteran’s Legislative severely restricted, Article I Court. "The court
may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the
policies underlying the schedule.", i.e., the order ignored "to harm"
R&D experimental effects and their causes! The Veterans Court Chief Judge's no teeth statement with his VA ignoring of the Court’s decisions! [6] The
Secretary of the VA was given Final Decision authority on these
issues. [9] Included is the power of NO APPEAL to this LEGISLATIVE
Veterans Court or to the independent U.S. Judicial Branch Courts. If
allowed an APPEAL, it is not part of the record at the Article I
Veterans Court. The evidence is also missing at the next level U.S.
Judicial Branch Article III, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
All Is In-The-Record!
Each Executive Branch (DOD, CIA & BARDA) Project completes the R&D
process. The prior lessons learned are reviewed. The then Scope of
Work defines what the experiment is "designed" to do. The how, where,
when and who is identified. The conducted researched cause and effects
are closely followed. From the results are developed safe production,
use, the needed for treatment and protection, e.g., the DOD
manufacturers handling of hazardous materials such as Depleted
Uranium, Agent Orange, the biological agents of Project 112 [8] and
the jet-engine noise levels of Project 7210 [2]. All is in the
Executive Branch record! Under the cover of national security the
revealing treatment evidence: 1. Is not cause identified in a
subject’s Medical History, so that they never the wiser become. The
deceived victim’s "to harm" effects are not Medical History recorded,
therefore not addressed! Prevented is any follow up by independent
civilian and Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) physicians. And 2. For veterans’ the 64 years
of experiment specific injuries are not in the VA "schedule of ratings
for disabilities" [6]!
Why "may not review"?
May not be reviewed records prevent medical, administrative and
judicial "activities" that "would be detrimental to the accomplishment
of...mission. " This is by the still in 2008 reasoning of "it was
necessary to conceal these activities from the american public in
general, because public knowledge of the unethical and illicit
activities would have serious repercussions in political and
diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of
its mission." U.S. Supreme Court 1987 Stanley Case; Footnote 4, Page
688 on its proven 1958 CIA experiment on U.S. Army personnel. [4]
"Right to Know".
There now is no 64 years later "Veterans Right to Know". After they
complete Honorable Service despite the efforts of some Congress has
not given back to veterans their rights. Revealed would be the few’s
corrupt for the greater good of all. Accomplished by the end justifies
the "designed to harm" means. Carried out under the cover of our
nation’s wars! A few key members in Congress, have dishonored those
that serve. Lost are those prior to service rights that convicted
rapists and murderers keep! [5]
Hold Responsible.
Now BARDA Experiments Conducted on You! Please, Hold Your Members in
the U.S. Congress Accountable! These U.S. Supreme Court and U.S.
Senate Documented Facts Are Internet Censored.[11] Passing this on to
Others So That They May Do the Same Would Be Appreciated. Thank You.
David H. Marshall
REFERENCES:
[1] U.S. Supreme Court, Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).
[2] USAF Project 7210 "A Compilation of Turbojet Noise Data", Bolt
Beranek & Newman, Inc. Cambridge 38, MA. Sound pressure levels for all
jet-engines in-service. Conducted at Wright Patterson Air Force Base,
Dayton, Ohio in 1952. 1954 logged in as the 401st report for that year
published as Report 54-401 July 1956
[3] DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human
experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A.
Grodin, "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in
Human Experimentation" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). In
Reference [8] as NOTES 72, 168 & 169.
[4] U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 1987, U.S. V. Stanley, 107 S. Ct.
3054 (Volume 483 U.S., Section 669, Pages 699 to 710). In Reference
[8] Cited in Note 169.
[5] U.S. State Dept., "U.S. Report under the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Art. 7".
[6] Chief Judge Frank Q. Nebeker, State of the Court for Presentation
to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals Third Judicial
Conference October 17-18, 1994. In the Veterans Appeals Reporter.
www.firebase. net/state_of_ court_brief. htm Annual Judicial Conference
Transcript. www.goodnet. com/~heads/ nebeker
[7] U.S. Senate December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research
Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century."
Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 103rd
Congress 2nd Session. With NOTES 1 to 170. Committee Print - S. Print.
103-97.
[8] "Project 112 (Including Project SHAD) Home" chemical and
biological experiments; www. 1.va.gov/shad/
[9] United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the
Secretary; finality. http://www.law. cornell.edu/
[10] "Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)" S-3678.
Why is it that this is not discussed in the Presidential debates or elsewhere in political circles? Why is this not a part of the National News nightly until something is done about it? Why? Because the military, the VA and others who are responsible for the care of our soldiers do not want you, the American public to know about this. This is a cost of war just like the cost of the bombs and other munitions use to fight the enemy. Our soldiers mental health is a cost of war and the cost is becoming very high!
Rocky
Soldier Suicides at Record Level
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 31, 2008; A01
Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, a psychiatric outpatient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who was waiting for the Army to decide whether to court-martial her for endangering another soldier and turning a gun on herself last year in Iraq, attempted to kill herself Monday evening. In so doing, the 25-year-old Army reservist joined a record number of soldiers who have committed or tried to commit suicide after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
"I'm very disappointed with the Army," Whiteside wrote in a note before swallowing dozens of antidepressants and other pills. "Hopefully this will help other soldiers." She was taken to the emergency room early Tuesday. Whiteside, who is now in stable physical condition, learned yesterday that the charges against her had been dismissed.
Whiteside's personal tragedy is part of an alarming phenomenon in the Army's ranks: Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.
At the same time, the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army has jumped sixfold since the Iraq war began. Last year, about 2,100 soldiers injured themselves or attempted suicide, compared with about 350 in 2002, according to the U.S. Army Medical Command Suicide Prevention Action Plan.
The Army was unprepared for the high number of suicides and cases of post-traumatic stress disorder among its troops, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have continued far longer than anticipated. Many Army posts still do not offer enough individual counseling and some soldiers suffering psychological problems complain that they are stigmatized by commanders. Over the past year, four high-level commissions have recommended reforms and Congress has given the military hundreds of millions of dollars to improve its mental health care, but critics charge that significant progress has not been made.
The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed severe stress on the Army, caused in part by repeated and lengthened deployments. Historically, suicide rates tend to decrease when soldiers are in conflicts overseas, but that trend has reversed in recent years. From a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 -- the lowest rate on record -- the Army reached an all-time high of 17.5 suicides per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2006.
Last year, twice as many soldier suicides occurred in the United States than in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, the Army's top psychiatrist and author of the study, said that suicides and attempted suicides "are continuing to rise despite a lot of things we're doing now and have been doing." Ritchie added: "We need to improve training and education. We need to improve our capacity to provide behavioral health care."
Ritchie's team conducted more than 200 interviews in the United States and overseas, and found that the common factors in suicides and attempted suicides include failed personal relationships; legal, financial or occupational problems; and the frequency and length of overseas deployments. She said the Army must do a better job of making sure that soldiers in distress receive mental health services. "We need to know what to do when we're concerned about one of our fellows."
The study, which the Army's top personnel chief ordered six months ago, acknowledges that the Army still does not know how to adequately assess, monitor and treat soldiers with psychological problems. In fact, it says that "the current Army Suicide Prevention Program was not originally designed for a combat/deployment environment. "
Staff Sgt. Gladys Santos, an Army medic who attempted suicide after three tours in Iraq, said the Army urgently needs to hire more psychiatrists and psychologists who have an understanding of war. "They gave me an 800 number to call if I needed help," she said. "When I come to feeling overwhelmed, I don't care about the 800 number. I want a one-on-one talk with a trained psychiatrist who's either been to war or understands war."
Santos, who is being treated at Walter Reed, said the only effective therapy she has received there in the past year have been the one-on-one sessions with her psychiatrist, not the group sessions in which soldiers are told "Don't hit your wife, don't hit your kids," or the other groups where they play bingo or learn how to properly set a table.
Over the past year, the Army has reinvigorated its efforts to understand mental health issues and has instituted new assessment surveys and new online videos and questionnaires to help soldiers recognize problems and become more resilient, Ritchie said. It has also hired more mental health providers. The plan calls for attaching more chaplains to deployed units and assigning "battle buddies" to improve peer support and monitoring.
Increasing suicides raise "real questions about whether you can have an Army this size with multiple deployments, " said David Rudd, a former Army psychologist and chairman of the psychology department at Texas Tech University.
On Monday night, as President Bush delivered his State of the Union address and asked Congress to "improve the system of care for our wounded warriors and help them build lives of hope and promise and dignity," Whiteside was dozing off from the effects of her drug overdose. Her case highlights the Army's continuing struggles to remove the stigma surrounding mental illness and to make it easier for soldiers and officers to seek psychological help.
Whiteside, the subject of a Post article in December, was a high-achieving University of Virginia graduate, and she earned top scores from her Army raters. But as a medic in charge of a small prison team in Iraq, she was repeatedly harassed by one of her commanders, which disturbed her greatly, according to an Army investigation.
On Jan. 1, 2007, weary from helping to quell riots in the prison after the execution of Saddam Hussein, Whiteside had a mental breakdown, according to an Army sanity board investigation. She pointed a gun at a superior, fired two shots into the ceiling and then turned the weapon on herself, piercing several organs. She has been at Walter Reed ever since.
Whiteside's two immediate commanders brought charges against her, but Maj. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, the only physician in her chain of command and then the commander of Walter Reed, recommended that the charges be dropped, citing her "demonstrably severe depression" and "7 years of credible and honorable service."
The case hinged in part on whether her mental illness prompted her actions, as Walter Reed psychiatrists testified last month, or whether it was "an excuse" for her actions, as her company commander wrote when he proffered the original charges in April. Those charges included assault on a superior commissioned officer, aggravated assault, kidnapping, reckless endangerment, wrongful discharge of a firearm, communication of a threat and two attempts of intentional self-injury without intent to avoid service.
An Army hearing officer cited "Army values" and the need to do "what is right, legally and morally" when he recommended last month that Whiteside not face court-martial or other administration punishment, but that she be discharged and receive the medical benefits "she will desperately need for the remainder of her life." Whiteside decided to speak publicly about her case only after a soldier she had befriended at the hospital's psychiatric ward hanged herself after she was discharged without benefits.
But the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, which has ultimate legal jurisdiction over the case, declined for weeks to tell Whiteside whether others in her chain of command have concurred or differed with the hearing officer, said Matthew MacLean, Whiteside's civilian attorney and a former military lawyer.
MacLean and Whiteside's father, Thomas Whiteside, said the uncertainty took its toll on the young officer's mental state. "I've never seen anything like this. It's just so far off the page," said Thomas Whiteside, his voice cracking with emotion. "I told her, 'If you check out of here, you're not going to be able to help other soldiers.' "
Whiteside recently had begun to take prerequisite classes for a nursing degree, and her mental stability seemed to be improving, her father said. Then late last week, she told him she was having trouble sleeping, with a possible court-martial weighing on her. On Monday night, she asked her father to take her back to her room at Walter Reed so she could study.
She swallowed her pills there. A soldier and his wife, who live next door, came to her room and, after a while, noticed that she was becoming groggy, Thomas Whiteside said. When they returned later and she would not open the door, they called hospital authorities.
Yesterday, after having spent two nights in the intensive care unit, he said, his daughter was transferred to the psychiatric ward.
Whiteside left two notes, one titled "Business," in which her top concern was the fate of her dog. "Appointment for the Vetenarian is in my blue book. Additional paperwork on Chewy is in the closet at the apartment in a folder." On her second note, she penned a postscript: "Sorry to do this to my family + friends. I love you."
Staff writer Anne Hull contributed to this report.
Rocky
Soldier Suicides at Record Level
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 31, 2008; A01
Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, a psychiatric outpatient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who was waiting for the Army to decide whether to court-martial her for endangering another soldier and turning a gun on herself last year in Iraq, attempted to kill herself Monday evening. In so doing, the 25-year-old Army reservist joined a record number of soldiers who have committed or tried to commit suicide after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
"I'm very disappointed with the Army," Whiteside wrote in a note before swallowing dozens of antidepressants and other pills. "Hopefully this will help other soldiers." She was taken to the emergency room early Tuesday. Whiteside, who is now in stable physical condition, learned yesterday that the charges against her had been dismissed.
Whiteside's personal tragedy is part of an alarming phenomenon in the Army's ranks: Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.
At the same time, the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army has jumped sixfold since the Iraq war began. Last year, about 2,100 soldiers injured themselves or attempted suicide, compared with about 350 in 2002, according to the U.S. Army Medical Command Suicide Prevention Action Plan.
The Army was unprepared for the high number of suicides and cases of post-traumatic stress disorder among its troops, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have continued far longer than anticipated. Many Army posts still do not offer enough individual counseling and some soldiers suffering psychological problems complain that they are stigmatized by commanders. Over the past year, four high-level commissions have recommended reforms and Congress has given the military hundreds of millions of dollars to improve its mental health care, but critics charge that significant progress has not been made.
The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed severe stress on the Army, caused in part by repeated and lengthened deployments. Historically, suicide rates tend to decrease when soldiers are in conflicts overseas, but that trend has reversed in recent years. From a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 -- the lowest rate on record -- the Army reached an all-time high of 17.5 suicides per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2006.
Last year, twice as many soldier suicides occurred in the United States than in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, the Army's top psychiatrist and author of the study, said that suicides and attempted suicides "are continuing to rise despite a lot of things we're doing now and have been doing." Ritchie added: "We need to improve training and education. We need to improve our capacity to provide behavioral health care."
Ritchie's team conducted more than 200 interviews in the United States and overseas, and found that the common factors in suicides and attempted suicides include failed personal relationships; legal, financial or occupational problems; and the frequency and length of overseas deployments. She said the Army must do a better job of making sure that soldiers in distress receive mental health services. "We need to know what to do when we're concerned about one of our fellows."
The study, which the Army's top personnel chief ordered six months ago, acknowledges that the Army still does not know how to adequately assess, monitor and treat soldiers with psychological problems. In fact, it says that "the current Army Suicide Prevention Program was not originally designed for a combat/deployment environment. "
Staff Sgt. Gladys Santos, an Army medic who attempted suicide after three tours in Iraq, said the Army urgently needs to hire more psychiatrists and psychologists who have an understanding of war. "They gave me an 800 number to call if I needed help," she said. "When I come to feeling overwhelmed, I don't care about the 800 number. I want a one-on-one talk with a trained psychiatrist who's either been to war or understands war."
Santos, who is being treated at Walter Reed, said the only effective therapy she has received there in the past year have been the one-on-one sessions with her psychiatrist, not the group sessions in which soldiers are told "Don't hit your wife, don't hit your kids," or the other groups where they play bingo or learn how to properly set a table.
Over the past year, the Army has reinvigorated its efforts to understand mental health issues and has instituted new assessment surveys and new online videos and questionnaires to help soldiers recognize problems and become more resilient, Ritchie said. It has also hired more mental health providers. The plan calls for attaching more chaplains to deployed units and assigning "battle buddies" to improve peer support and monitoring.
Increasing suicides raise "real questions about whether you can have an Army this size with multiple deployments, " said David Rudd, a former Army psychologist and chairman of the psychology department at Texas Tech University.
On Monday night, as President Bush delivered his State of the Union address and asked Congress to "improve the system of care for our wounded warriors and help them build lives of hope and promise and dignity," Whiteside was dozing off from the effects of her drug overdose. Her case highlights the Army's continuing struggles to remove the stigma surrounding mental illness and to make it easier for soldiers and officers to seek psychological help.
Whiteside, the subject of a Post article in December, was a high-achieving University of Virginia graduate, and she earned top scores from her Army raters. But as a medic in charge of a small prison team in Iraq, she was repeatedly harassed by one of her commanders, which disturbed her greatly, according to an Army investigation.
On Jan. 1, 2007, weary from helping to quell riots in the prison after the execution of Saddam Hussein, Whiteside had a mental breakdown, according to an Army sanity board investigation. She pointed a gun at a superior, fired two shots into the ceiling and then turned the weapon on herself, piercing several organs. She has been at Walter Reed ever since.
Whiteside's two immediate commanders brought charges against her, but Maj. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, the only physician in her chain of command and then the commander of Walter Reed, recommended that the charges be dropped, citing her "demonstrably severe depression" and "7 years of credible and honorable service."
The case hinged in part on whether her mental illness prompted her actions, as Walter Reed psychiatrists testified last month, or whether it was "an excuse" for her actions, as her company commander wrote when he proffered the original charges in April. Those charges included assault on a superior commissioned officer, aggravated assault, kidnapping, reckless endangerment, wrongful discharge of a firearm, communication of a threat and two attempts of intentional self-injury without intent to avoid service.
An Army hearing officer cited "Army values" and the need to do "what is right, legally and morally" when he recommended last month that Whiteside not face court-martial or other administration punishment, but that she be discharged and receive the medical benefits "she will desperately need for the remainder of her life." Whiteside decided to speak publicly about her case only after a soldier she had befriended at the hospital's psychiatric ward hanged herself after she was discharged without benefits.
But the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, which has ultimate legal jurisdiction over the case, declined for weeks to tell Whiteside whether others in her chain of command have concurred or differed with the hearing officer, said Matthew MacLean, Whiteside's civilian attorney and a former military lawyer.
MacLean and Whiteside's father, Thomas Whiteside, said the uncertainty took its toll on the young officer's mental state. "I've never seen anything like this. It's just so far off the page," said Thomas Whiteside, his voice cracking with emotion. "I told her, 'If you check out of here, you're not going to be able to help other soldiers.' "
Whiteside recently had begun to take prerequisite classes for a nursing degree, and her mental stability seemed to be improving, her father said. Then late last week, she told him she was having trouble sleeping, with a possible court-martial weighing on her. On Monday night, she asked her father to take her back to her room at Walter Reed so she could study.
She swallowed her pills there. A soldier and his wife, who live next door, came to her room and, after a while, noticed that she was becoming groggy, Thomas Whiteside said. When they returned later and she would not open the door, they called hospital authorities.
Yesterday, after having spent two nights in the intensive care unit, he said, his daughter was transferred to the psychiatric ward.
Whiteside left two notes, one titled "Business," in which her top concern was the fate of her dog. "Appointment for the Vetenarian is in my blue book. Additional paperwork on Chewy is in the closet at the apartment in a folder." On her second note, she penned a postscript: "Sorry to do this to my family + friends. I love you."
Staff writer Anne Hull contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
