New Audio of Rumsfeld Discussing Iraq War Creates Buzz

May 14, 2008 – The blogosphere has been abuzz about the Internet posting of audio of a luncheon former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held with media military analysts that provides insight into the relationship between those analysts and the Pentagon.

The Pentagon released the audio in response to requests filed by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act.

On April 20, The Times published “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” in which reporter David Barstow detailed a “Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.”

The government released the audio, which lasts nearly an hour, on May 8. Jack Gillis, a 55-year-old self-described news junkie, downloaded it over the past weekend and analyzed it.

His findings, which he posted Monday on his Newsvine account (MSNBC is the owner of Newsvine), include a review of eight clips totaling nearly 10 minutes. Gillis, an adjunct professor of composition and rhetoric at a community college, also provides a link to the full audio.

The luncheon was held in December 2006, a month after Rumsfeld resigned as defense secretary.

The clips Gillis provides include one in which the media analysts suggest, with Rumsfeld’s agreement, that Iraq needs an authoritarian dictator. In another, Rumsfeld suggests that the American public lacked the “maturity” to understand that the nation remained under threat from terrorists and that the only “correction” would be another attack on the U.S.

Gillis said that since he posted the analysis and audio on Monday, he has been fielding e-mails and phone calls and has had his work picked up by other blogs, including huffingtonpost.com.

The full audio, clips, analysis and links to other blogs can be found on his Newsvine account.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on New Audio of Rumsfeld Discussing Iraq War Creates Buzz

May 16, VCS in the News: VA E-Mail Discourages PTSD Diagnosis for Veterans

Temple, Texas, May 15, 2008 (CBS) – A Department of Veterans Affairs team leader in Texas suggested mental health professionals should diagnose patients with “adjustment disorder” rather than post traumatic stress disorder in order to save time and money treating veterans, according to an internal VA e-mail.

VA Secretary James Peake immediately called the e-mail “inappropriate” and a violation of VA policy.

On March 20, Norma J. Perez, a PTSD program coordinator and psychologist at the Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Center in Temple, Texas sent an e-mail with the subject line “Suggestion” to several staffers including psychologists, social workers, and a psychiatrist. In the e-mail, Perez wrote “given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I’d like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out.” She then went on to say “consider a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder. . .”

    Read the e-mail, obtained by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and VoteVets.org

“This means the veterans will not get disability benefits and health care for PTSD,” Paul Sullivan, the executive director of the advocate group Veterans for Common Sense, told CBS News.

Andrew Pogany, an investigator with the National Veterans Legal Services Program, said he thinks “purposely misdiagnosing someone is a serious ethical issue that [could] fall under malpractice.”

“VA staff across the country are working their hearts out to get our veterans the care they need and deserve,” said U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash), a key member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, “But e-mails like these make their jobs far more difficult.”

In her e-mail, Perez also told staffers that “we really don’t . . . have time to do the extensive testing that should be done to determine PTSD.”

Sullivan, whose group has a pending lawsuit against the VA to force the agency to improve the treatment of veterans, said this “shows our suit has merit and that the VA lacks the capacity to provide proper care.”

In a statement, however, Secretary Peake said “a single staff member, out of VA’s 230,000 employees, in a single medical facility sent a single e-mail with suggestions that are inappropriate and have been repudiated at the highest level of our health care organization.” He added “the employee has been counseled and is extremely apologetic.”

Peake promised that the VA is “committed to absolute accuracy in a diagnosis and unwavering in providing any and all earned benefits. PTSD and the mental health arena is no exception.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on May 16, VCS in the News: VA E-Mail Discourages PTSD Diagnosis for Veterans

VA Names Members of Gulf War Veterans Advisory Committee

May 13, 2008, Washington, DC – Veterans who served in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during 1990–1991 will have their own special advocates before Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake, thanks to a new advisory committee Peake established to respond to issues unique to them. 

The 14-member, independent panel will advise the Secretary and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on the full range of health care and benefits needs of those who served in the conflict.

“Gulf War veterans made an invaluable contribution to national security and peace in a volatile region,” Peake said. “This new panel will ensure that VA benefits and programs adapt to the needs of these veterans, just as our services have adapted for veterans of other conflicts.”

Serving on the committee are Gulf War and other veterans, veterans service organizations’ representatives, medical experts, and the survivors of Gulf War veterans.  Members were selected to provide a variety of perspectives, experiences and expertise.

The committee will be chaired by Charles Cragin, a retired Navy captain, who has had several senior level positions within the federal government, including Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and Chairman of VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

In January 2002, the Department created an advisory committee to assist VA’s secretary on research into the medical problems of Gulf War veterans.  That older committee will retain responsibility for research involving veterans of the 1990-1991 conflict in the Middle East.

This committee’s first meeting will be held in mid-June in Washington, D.C.  It is expected to complete its work within 18 months.  Committee meetings will be open to the public.

A list of the members of VA’s Gulf War Advisory Committee is attached.

Membership
VA Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans

Charles Cragin, (Chair) of Raymond, Maine.  Currently serves a senior counselor for Maine Street Solutions, LLC.
Martha Douthit of Ashburn, Va.  Surviving spouse of Gulf War Army veteran, member of the Gold Star Wives of America, currently an international trade analyst with the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Dr. Henry Falk of Atlanta.  Retired rear admiral and former Assistant U.S. Surgeon General.  Currently director for the Coordinating Center for Environmental Health and Injury Prevention with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Mark Garner of Lorton, Va.  A retired Marine Corps chief warrant officer-three and Gulf War veteran who served as a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Defense Officer.
Dr. Lynn Goldman of Chevy Chase, Md.  Vice chair of the Institute of Medicine Gulf War and Health Study; currently professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University.
Dr. John Hart of Plano, Texas.  Past president of the Society for Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology, currently professor of neurology and psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
William (Rusty) Jones of South Riding, Va.  Retired Marine Corps colonel, and veteran of Gulf War and Vietnam War.
Kirt Love of Crawford, Texas.  An Army veteran of the Gulf War, currently serving as director of the Desert Storm Battle Registry.
Daniel Ortiz of Whittier, Calif.  An Army veteran of the Gulf War, currently serving as department service director with the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Daniel Pinedo of Oceanside, Calif.  Marine Corps colonel currently serving as the comptroller for First Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif.
Thomas Plewes of Annandale, Va.  A retired Army lieutenant general and former chief of the Army Reserve.  Currently a senior program officer with National Academy of Sciences.
Valerie Randall of Savage, Md.  A retired Army sergeant first class; currently with the Department of Homeland Security.
Edward (Randy) Reese of Washington, D.C.  An Army veteran of the Gulf War; currently national service director for the Disabled American Veterans.
Steve Robertson of Fredericksburg, Va.  A Gulf War veteran who served both in the Air Force and Army National Guard.  Currently director of the national legislative commission for The American Legion.

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on VA Names Members of Gulf War Veterans Advisory Committee

Pentagon Biggest Obstacle to Democrats’ GI Bill

May 13, 2008, Washington, DC – Veterans groups say it’s time to expand college aid for GIs, and Democrats want to use an election year to do it. Their biggest obstacle? The Pentagon.

The Defense Department is lobbying against legislation proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would guarantee a full-ride scholarship for service members to any in-state public university. According to defense officials, the plan would hurt its ability to retain service members because the new GI education bill would require only three years before the full benefit kicks in. The Defense Department wants the commitment to be extended to at least six years.

“We have no issue with the fact that Sen. Webb wishes to provide a more generous education benefit to troops,” said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. “But we are certainly concerned that this would be eligible to them” so soon.

The Pentagon’s opposition to Webb’s bill underscores the difficulty the military has had in recruiting and retaining an all-volunteer force at a time when it is engaged in a war that is deeply unpopular with the American public.

Adding to the military’s dilemma is the larger number of soldiers and Marines needed to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, the Pentagon recommended that the Army be increased by about 65,000 soldiers to a total of 547,000, and the Marines be increased by 27,000 to 202,000.

The difficulty in finding young people also can be attributed in part to low unemployment numbers in recent years. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, unemployment dropped from 6 percent in 2003 to 4.6 percent in 2007.

In recent months, the military has had to take creative steps to reach its desired troop numbers. A year ago, when Army recruiters didn’t meet their goal, the service announced new $20,000 bonuses for recruits and up to $40,000 if an enlistee signed up for at least four years.

The Army also has granted special exceptions to recruits with prior criminal records, medical problems or low-aptitude scores that would have otherwise disqualified them from service. Senior military officials defended the change in policy as justified because they say current restrictions were so stringent that many members in Congress would have been denied entrance to the ranks because of indiscretions from their youth.

Retention rates have been less troublesome in the military, with the Army and Marine Corps exceeding their goals by large margins in 2006 and staying strong in 2007. Studies have found that combat deployments can prompt service members to re-enlist, usually because of a sense of accomplishment.

Still, the Defense Department is worried that its retention numbers could fall as service members are asked to return repeatedly to Iraq and Afghanistan and they are given too much of an incentive to leave. One particular problem facing the military is its ability to hang on to seasoned combat veterans, including those in the elite forces, who are being lured to higher-paying jobs in the private sector.

Webb, a Vietnam veteran and critic of the Iraq war, counters that his legislation would be more effective in attracting new recruits and would offset any drop in the military’s ranks.

“I can’t think of a better way to broaden (the) propensity to serve than to offer a truly meaningful educational benefit, rather than simply taking that smaller demographic” of those already enlisted “and pound on it” with repeated combat tours, he said.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Pentagon Biggest Obstacle to Democrats’ GI Bill

Tillman Mom: Account of Death May Not be True

May 13, 2008, San Francisco, CA – The mother of a former professional football player who died while serving in the Army Rangers suspects the military’s account of how fellow soldiers shot and killed her son in Afghanistan is still not the true story, four years later, according to her new book.

The Army told the family and public that Pat Tillman died in an enemy ambush April 22, 2004. The military knew within hours that friendly fire was involved but waited five weeks before disclosing it, in violation of military regulations.

The Associated Press and other news organizations have reported on the investigation into Tillman’s death, but lawmakers granted Mary Tillman access to uncensored versions of some documents that were not available to journalists.

“Boots on the Ground by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman,” just issued by Modern Times books, is based on her review of those documents and charts the Tillman family’s efforts to cut through misleading official accounts of how the former football player died. Tillman had walked away from a contract with the Arizona Cardinals to enlist after the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

Citing documents and eyewitness accounts, Mrs. Tillman says she strongly suspects the men who shot her son stepped out of a Humvee to aim carefully at him. They were not, as official accounts have asserted, speeding by on a bumpy mountain road. The shooters denied this.

At one Army briefing, Mrs. Tillman vents frustration and incredulity at lead investigator Brig. Gen. Gary Jones. He had dismissed the account of Spc. Bryan O’Neal, who was just a few feet away from Tillman when the Rangers lit up their position with gunfire.

“No one got out of the vehicle. That early information is incorrect, and O’Neal is the least reliable witness because he was so traumatized,” Jones tells Mrs. Tillman, according to the author.

“You won’t believe O’Neal, but you’ll believe the guys who were shooting at him!” Mrs. Tillman says.

The book reveals that Lt. Col. Jeffrey Bailey, the battalion commander who oversaw Pat Tillman’s platoon, wrote an angry e-mail to O’Neal last year when O’Neal told a congressional committee Bailey had ordered him to keep quiet about what he had seen.

Mrs. Tillman reserves special contempt for Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, currently the commander of the “black ops” Joint Special Operations Command. Just a day after approving a Silver Star medal claiming Tillman had been cut down by “devastating enemy fire,” McChrystal tried to secretly warn President Bush that the story might not be true. The AP obtained and published the memo last year.

“Not only is he lying about the circumstances surrounding Pat’s death, as enemy fire had ceased many minutes before, he is proposing false language for the Silver Star narrative,” Mrs. Tillman writes of the Silver Star language. “The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat’s true actions.”

Last year a Pentagon inspector general investigation recommended that the Army review its award of the Silver Star to Tillman, but the Army said the award would stand.

The Pentagon recommended last year that McChrystal be held accountable for “misleading” actions, but the Army overruled the recommendation.

Last year the Army censured a retired three-star general, Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger, for misleading investigators in the Tillman case. Specifically, a military review found “compelling evidence that Kensinger learned of suspected fratricide well before the memorial service (about two weeks after Tillman’s death) and provided misleading testimony” on that issue.

New documents obtained by The AP may explain why the Army felt so confident Kensinger had lied.

In a November 2006 written response to investigators, Nixon said he recalled telling Kensinger almost immediately of the possibility of friendly fire.

“I thought I did notify LTG Kensinger that there was a potential for fratricide and that we were beginning an investigation but can not recall the specific conversation,” Nixon wrote in an e-mail message. It was a follow-up to investigators who had interviewed him previously.

Col. James Nixon, Tillman’s regimental commander, also recalled telling Kensinger’s deputy, Brig. Gen. Howard Yellen.

Yellen has testified previously that he told Kensinger of the possibility of friendly fire the day after Tillman’s death

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Tillman Mom: Account of Death May Not be True

Former Military Intelligence Officer Reveals US Listed Palestine Hotel in Baghdad as Target Prior to Killing Two Journalists in 2003

May 13, 2008 – Last month marked the fifth anniversary of the US military shelling of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. The attack killed two journalists: Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman for the Spanish television network Telecinco. The Pentagon has called the killings accidental, but in this broadcast exclusive Army Sgt. Adrienne Kinne (Ret.) reveals she saw secret US military documents that listed the hotel as a possible target. Kinne also discloses that she was personally ordered to eavesdrop on Americans working for news organizations and NGOs in Iraq.

Rush Transcript:

There’s been much attention paid to the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. What went almost unnoticed was another anniversary. It happened a few weeks after the invasion. It was April 8th, 2003, when the US military shelled the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, killing two journalists: Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman for the Spanish television network Telecinco.

Just over a year ago, a Spanish judge indicted three US soldiers in the killings: Sergeant Shawn Gibson, Captain Philip Wolford and Lieutenant Colonel Philip DeCamp. The three men were charged with homicide and committing a crime against the international community.

The Bush administration has refused to hand over the soldiers for trial and has not charged them here in the United States. The Spanish Supreme Court recently affirmed Spain’s jurisdiction over the case.

The Pentagon has defended the attack on the Palestine Hotel, calling the killings accidental. The soldiers involved claim they were targeting insurgents who had fired rocket-propelled grenades.

But several holes have emerged in the US account. The Palestine Hotel was a well-known place for journalists covering the Iraq war. The US tanks were at too far a distance to be hit by rocket-propelled grenades from the hotel. Witnesses reported hearing almost no gunfire from the area around the hotel in the hours leading up to the US attack. And earlier that day, two other media outlets had also been hit by US strikes: the Abu Dhabi television network, and the satellite network Al Jazeera, killing correspondent Tareq Ayoub.

In a few moments, I’ll be joined by an Iraq war veteran who says she has new information that could point to a deliberate US attack on the Palestine Hotel.

But first, I want to turn to the documentary Hotel Palestine: Killing the Witness, produced by Jose Couso’s network, Telecinco. It was broadcast on Spanish television. It includes interviews with numerous journalists who were inside the Palestine Hotel and helped rush Jose Couso to the hospital. This clip begins with scenes taken inside the Palestine Hotel moments after the US attack. A warning to our television audience: some footage contains graphic images.

NARRATOR: The shell explodes before hitting the hotel facade and sprays the upper floors with shrapnel. The Reuters room suffers the dramatic consequences. Near the balcony, the cameraman Taras Protsyuk receives the full blast and collapses, mortally wounded. Paul Pasquale finds himself on the floor, covered with blood.

JON SISTIAGA: [translated] I couldn’t believe that it was the Americans until I reached Couso, who was conscious, who was awake, and he told me it was the tank.

ANTONIO BAQUERO: [translated] Suddenly we saw a damaged balcony. It was the fifteenth floor. I started to count. One, two, three, four, five…fifteen. They hit the Reuters room. The first I thought was, “Damn it, Couso is right below there.”

JON SISTIAGA: [translated] It was a tank, because Couso saw how they shot him. He was looking at the tank when he was hit. He was aware of who killed him.

ANTONIO BAQUERO: [translated] And then I saw the camera on the floor, destroyed, and the pool of blood. That moment is frozen in my mind. I remember I stopped saying, “My god, my god.”

NARRATOR: Several people help prepare Couso for transport to the hospital. They place him on a mattress and tie an emergency tourniquet. If they fail to stop the bleeding, he won’t make it to the hospital.

JON SISTIAGA: [translated] An Iraqi man who I didn’t know at all and who we should be grateful to the rest of our lives offered me his car, an old Soviet Lada, and we managed to put Couso inside with the help of Jorge Pliego, a Mexican cameraman who was extremely close to Couso.

JORGE PLIEGO: [translated] We pulled him into a car, and the whole time I was talking to Couso. I knew him pretty well. I knew his wife’s name was Lola and he had two children. On the way to the hospital, I spoke to him. “Couso, you have to put your strength into this. You have two children. Lola’s waiting for you. You have to fight hard.” I told him it had to be like in the movies. He couldn’t fall asleep or faint. He had to keep talking, so he could reach the hospital strong and determined. And he agreed. He said, “Fine, then,” just like in the movies. At one point he said, “My leg is a mess, isn’t it?” “No! When we get there, we’ll sew it up,” I said. I was especially struck by the fact that Couso complained.

JON SISTIAGA: [translated] Then he said, “Why did the tank fire at us? Where are you taking me? What’s happening? Are they filming me? Are they not filming me? Don’t let my family see it. Don’t let my children see me.”

AMY GOODMAN: Jose Couso died in the hospital. Scenes from the attack on the Palestine Hotel from the documentary Hotel Palestine: Killing the Witness. It was produced by Jose’s network, Telecinco in Spain.

I’m joined now by Adrienne Kinne. She’s a former Army sergeant who worked in military intelligence in Iraq. She served in the military for ten years, from 1994 to 2004. She joins us now from Burlington, Vermont.

We welcome you, Adrienne Kinne, to Democracy Now! Adrienne, can you hear me? We will go to a music break. Adrienne, can you hear me?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Yes, I can.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you very much for joining us.

ADRIENNE KINNE: Thank you for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: Adrienne, can you talk about your work in military intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion and after the invasion? Tell us what you were doing and where you were.

ADRIENNE KINNE: I was stationed at Fort Gordon, Georgia, and I was actually mobilized shortly after 9/11 with a group of reservists who were eventually sent to Fort Gordon to work a mission, that it was actually a brand new mission. It was something not like anything I had done in military intelligence previously. And this new mission involved the intercept of satellite phone communications in Iraq and Afghanistan and basically a huge swath of the region around those two countries. It was really brand new, and basically there were about twenty of us who were put in charge of this new mission, to stand it up.

In the very beginning, basically what we did was that we would have a front end, which intercepted satellite phone communications in that region, and then it would transmit the satellite phone conversations back to the United States, where it would just fill up this queue in our computer, and we would just go through. And all the numbers were unidentified. So, at the beginning, it was just a matter of sifting through thousands upon thousands of unidentified satellite phone communications, as we kind of tried to sort out what phone number belonged to who and kind of go through the process of identifying phone numbers in the search for intelligence that might be related to operations in Afghanistan and, later on, Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: And when were you listening to Iraq?

ADRIENNE KINNE: We started listening to the entire region pretty much immediately. I think this was December of 2001. And I was mobilized from October 2001 through August of 2003. So I was working that mission pretty much from December through August of 2003.

And over the course of my time, as we slowly began to identify phone numbers and who belonged to what, one thing that gave me grave concern was that as we identified phone numbers, we started to find more and more and more numbers that belonged not to any organizations affiliated with terrorism or with military—with militaries of Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere, but with humanitarian aid organizations, non-governmental organizations, who include the International Red Cross, Red Crescent, Doctors Without Borders, a whole host of humanitarian aid organizations. And it also included journalists.

AMY GOODMAN: Journalists where?

ADRIENNE KINNE: I remember bits and pieces of what we listened to while I was activated. I’d just like to say that at the time I took my clearance incredibly seriously. I had a very high clearance, military intelligence. And I never took notes. I never brought anything outside of our building. I never talked about my experiences with my friends or family. But there were certain things that happened over the course of our mobilization that struck me as being very wrong, and I remember them very specifically.

One of the instances was the fact that we were listening to journalists who were staying in the Palestine Hotel. And I remember that, specifically because during the buildup to Shock and Awe, which people in my unit were really disturbingly excited about, we were given a list of potential targets in Baghdad, and the Palestine Hotel was listed as a potential target. And I remember this specifically, because, putting one and one together, that there were journalists staying at the Palestine Hotel and this hotel was listed as a potential target, I went to my officer in charge, and I told him that there are journalists staying at this hotel who think they’re safe, and yet we have this hotel listed as a potential target, and somehow the dots are not being connected here, and shouldn’t we make an effort to make sure that the right people know the situation?

And unfortunately, my officer in charge, similarly to any time I raised concerns about things that we were collecting or intelligence that we were reporting, basically told me that it was not my job to analyze. It was my job to collect and pass on information and that someone somewhere higher up the chain knew what they were doing.

AMY GOODMAN: Who was the officer in charge? Who did you tell?

ADRIENNE KINNE: My officer in charge for the duration of my mobilization was Warrant Officer John Berry.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, when you saw this list that you say, a list of targets, and Hotel Palestine was on it, why would you see this? Where were you? How did you pick up this piece of paper?

ADRIENNE KINNE: It was actually an email. And I worked in a secure building, and we were given updates about what was going on. I actually am not sure why we were emailed this list of potential targets, and I’m not even sure in what context it was mailed—emailed to us. I would assume it was just an effort to let people know what was going on in the area, considering our mission. But the only reason now that I really remember that specific email is because I knew, having listened to journalists staying at the Palestine Hotel, talking with their families and loved ones and talking about whether or not they were safe and trying to reassure their family and co-workers and loved ones that they were safe, when I saw that hotel listed, I thought there was something that was going terribly wrong.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Adrienne Kinne, military intelligence, formerly a sergeant. We’re going to go to break, and we’ll come back to this conversation. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is a former Army sergeant, worked in military intelligence, served for ten years in the military, from ’94 to 2004. Her name is Adrienne Kinne, joining us from Vermont.

That list that you saw that you got in an email, what else? What were the other targets on the list? Do you remember?

ADRIENNE KINNE: I can’t remember. The only reason why I remember that hotel specifically is because I knew that there were people staying there who thought they were safe. And that’s really the only reason why I remember that specific target.

AMY GOODMAN: And when you say they thought they were safe, can you remember what the conversations you overheard that you were eavesdropping on?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Basically, a lot of them were just kind of, you know, workers there, journalists who were calling their friends, family, loved ones to include phone calls to the United States, and we could hear both sides of the conversation. And basically it would just be, you know, people calling their loved ones in basically the middle of the night and talking to them and just—I mean, people were so concerned, knowing that we were building up to Shock and Awe and that Baghdad was going to get really severely hammered by our military, that everybody worried about their safety. And the journalists staying at the hotel were no different.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, you’re an Arab interpreter, translator. Why were you listening to conversations in other languages?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Basically, when we were given this mission, it was unlike anything I’d ever done before. I had actually worked in the same building previously on active duty. And at that point in time, everything was very structured. People were given specific missions, specific targets in their language, and there was a lot of guidance as to how you were to proceed through collection of intelligence. And things were very closely monitored.

I remember in probably 1997 that I was listening to a military intelligence cut from a Middle Eastern country, and at that point in time, during the situation report, the person relayed the fact that an American was visiting the Middle East on a diplomatic mission. And because an American’s name was referenced in this particular transmission, we felt that it was a violation of our directive, which forbade the collection on American citizens. And as a result, we deleted every evidence that that intercept had ever taken place.

After 9/11, when we were mobilized and given this new mission, it was very—starting something from the bottom up, and it was really striking that in intercepting all these satellite phone communications, the majority of the traffic was not Arabic. It was languages beyond our translation capabilities. We would get Chinese, Japanese, Tagalog, Tadzhik, a lot of Dari, Persian, Pashto, some minimal Arabic, but really not that much. And so, we would just go through this process of going through and identifying who belonged to what. And as we began to identify different phone numbers which belong to these humanitarian organizations and journalists, we actually had the capability to block those phone numbers from being intercepted, but due to guidance given to our officer in charge, we did not do that.

AMY GOODMAN: You were listening to NGOs speaking to each other?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: That isn’t legal. You’re not supposed to be eavesdropping on them.

ADRIENNE KINNE: Right. And actually, over the course of our mobilization, I actually listened to a conversation between an American and a British aid worker. And during the course of the conversation, the British aid worker told the American—

AMY GOODMAN: We just lost that satellite. We will try to get Adrienne on the telephone to continue this conversation right now. Adrienne Kinne, former Army sergeant who worked in military intelligence, served for ten years, from 1994 to 2004.

I want to turn back now to the documentary Hotel Palestine: Killing the Witness, that was produced by Jose Couso’s network, Telecinco. In addition to interviewing numerous journalists who were inside the Palestine Hotel, we also hear from two of the soldiers wanted in Spain: Staff Sergeant Shawn Gibson and Lieutenant Colonel Philip DeCamp.

NARRATOR: Gibson swings his cannon toward the hotel and requests Captain Wolford’s permission to fire, but he still hesitates.

SGT. SHAWN GIBSON: And I still hesitated. Do you hear me? I hesitated.

PASCALE BOURGAUX: I know.

SGT. SHAWN GIBSON: OK? And I took my time, and I called it up to ensure what I seen, and it was clarified with another set of eyes.

NARRATOR: The decision was not taken in the heat of battle. Ten minutes go by until Gibson receives the order to open fire.

SGT. SHAWN GIBSON: We did not know that they had reporters in the Palestine Hotel. If we would have known that, we would not have fired a round over there. I don’t even know if that information was given to the US Army. I do not know that. OK? If it was, it didn’t get down to my level.

CHRIS TOMLINSON: What Colonel Perkins and Colonel DeCamp have told me is that they did not have any information about the Palestine Hotel or the location of Western journalists prior to coming into Baghdad on April 7th.

NARRATOR: When Colin Powell visits Spain on May 2nd, he confirms what everyone had assumed. The military command was perfectly aware that the journalists were based at the Palestine Hotel.

COLIN POWELL: We knew about the hotel. We knew that it was a hotel where journalists were located, and others, and it is for that reason it was not attacked during any phase of the aerial campaign.

NARRATOR: The generals monitoring the fighting from their headquarters in Qatar soon watched the incident broadcast worldwide on television and called Baghdad demanding an explanation.

CHRIS TOMLINSON: That image got out on satellite television, and their senior commanders at the two- and three-star general level, messaged them and said, “What are you doing shooting the Palestine Hotel?”

NARRATOR: Tomlinson overhears radio communications discussing the incident. Lieutenant Colonel DeCamp is informed of the attack by his superiors and shouts over the radio.

LT. COL. PHILIP DeCAMP: Who just shot the Palestinian Hotel?

NARRATOR: Tomlinson hears how DeCamp, clearly upset, asks Wolford:

LT. COL. PHILIP DeCAMP: Did you just shoot the Palestinian Hotel?

CHRIS TOMLINSON: The way he asked the question was a little misleading. When he asked Captain Wolford, did you shoot the Palestine Hotel, he assumed knowledge that Captain Wolford didn’t have.

SGT. SHAWN GIBSON: I wish it would have never happened, but it has happened. And I pray to God and I ask God for His forgiveness, and my sincere apologies and grievances to their families. It was not done intentionally.

CHRIS TOMLINSON: There was the sense throughout the chain of command, from Perkins to DeCamp to Wolford, all the way down to Shawn Gibson, that they had done something very bad, that they—I can tell you that Captain Wolford was visibly upset when I saw him an hour—two hours later. He was very upset about it. Sergeant Gibson is very upset about it. Colonel DeCamp obviously was very angry, he was upset.

NARRATOR: Spanish journalists are not as understanding as Tomlinson about the military officer’s behavior. The three attacks on journalists on April 8th lead them to think that US forces did not want witnesses.

JON SISTIAGA: [translated] What’s my opinion? My opinion is that there was a deliberate intent to fire on the journalists’ hotel.

JOURNALIST: [translated] So, they had to know perfectly well where we were, and there was no mistake. There could be no mistake.

JON SISTIAGA: [translated] First, they get rid of the offices of Al Jazeera TV. Half an hour later, they shoot at the offices of Abu Dhabi TV. And half an hour after that, the same tank—why not?—shoots at the hotel where other international journalists are staying.

JOURNALIST: [translated] I don’t know to what extent the Americans knew that the final stages of the war would be so easy for them.

JON SISTIAGA: [translated] And what they did not want under any circumstances was almost 300 journalists, non-American and not under their control, that is, who would not exercise patriotic self-censorship, ready to cover whatever might happen.

AMY GOODMAN: That, an excerpt of the Telecinco documentary on the killing of the two journalists at the Palestine Hotel April 8th, 2003. Jose Couso worked for Telecinco.

Adrienne Kinne is joining us on the phone right now from Vermont. We lost the satellite signal. The former Army sergeant who worked in military intelligence, served ten years, from ’94 to 2004, was an Arab translator and says that she received an email, a list of targets. She had—what kind of security clearance did you have, Adrienne Kinne?

ADRIENNE KINNE: I actually had a top-secret FBI clearance.

AMY GOODMAN: And as we listen to this, the confusion on the ground supposedly, the soldiers who have now been indicted in a Spanish court say, the question was why they weren’t told from their higher-ups immediately what the Palestine Hotel was, who was in the Palestine hotel. And you contend that the list came—you saw this list before April 8th, 2003, before it was attacked.

ADRIENNE KINNE: Yeah. I can’t be a hundred percent positive as far as the timeline, but to the best of my memory, it was in the buildup and before Shock and Awe. So I believe that if it had been after the attack had already taken place, it would have been very much a moot point.

AMY GOODMAN: And you say you were listening to conversations of journalists in the Palestine Hotel before, saying—explicitly saying they felt they were safe, reassuring loved ones they were having conversations with. And this was on just satellite phone technology?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Yeah, that’s what our mission was post-9/11, was intercepting satellite phone communications, to include any email and faxes that were transmitted over satellite phone connections.

AMY GOODMAN: I also, Adrienne Kinne, wanted to go back to this point of eavesdropping on international aid organizations, on NGOs. Can you explicitly say what you heard and why you were listening to these conversations?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Definitely. During that one conversation between a British aid worker and the American aid worker that I was talking about previously, the British aid worker basically told the American, “Be careful what you say, because the Americans are listening to us.” And they weren’t talking about anything that would have warranted their concern. There was—it was just kind of mundane office goings-on. And so, the American actually responded and said, “They can’t listen to me. I’m an American citizen. I’m protected by USSID 18.” And USSID 18 is basically a directive which is given out to military intelligence which bars the collection on American citizens, to include allies of other countries who we’ve signed binding agreements with. And when I heard that transmission and that conversation, I—kind of it caused me to raise my eyebrow, because here we were, we were listening to Americans, and we were collecting on them.

And so, I brought that particular intercept to the attention of my officer in charge. And actually, rather than be concerned that we were actually spying on Americans and violating the law and the Constitution, he was actually outraged that an American would reference USSID 18 to a non-American, and as if this American was somehow betraying some classified information that Americans have a right not to be spied upon.

And it was shortly thereafter that we were given a verbal waiver that we could listen to Americans and other ally citizens of allied countries for whatever—from whatever organizations, humanitarian aid organizations, journalists, NGOs, because—and then we were given two reasons that we could listen to Americans and these ally citizens. One was that they were eyes on the ground, and they could stumble upon the location of weapons of mass destruction, and if they should pass the location on over the phone to co-workers or what have you, that we would have to be listening in order to find out where the weapons of mass destruction were located, and we could pass that location on to higher-ups. The other rationale that we were given in order to kind of justify spying on Americans was that the organization or the individual could lose their satellite phone, and a terrorist could pick it up and then start using it. And we would have to monitor all these phones in order to make sure that if that took place, we could be there to listen to the terrorists.

And, you know, when this was going on, I had absolutely no idea what was going on in the rest of the military intelligence, the rest of our government. Everything is so compartmentalized that you don’t really know necessarily what the person next to you is doing, let alone in a different room in a different building in a different location. And so, it really wasn’t until the New York Times piece came out about the NSA’s domestic wiretapping that I really began to think about what we were doing and my mission and that we were collecting on Americans. And we were doing so for the flimsiest of reasons.

After watching the documentary recently called No End in Sight, in that documentary, there were actually people on the ground in Iraq who would come across the location of weapons caches, and they would call our military and report their location, thinking that it might be a good idea to secure those weapons caches. And our military just did not have the capability to go out to all of these locations. So there were people on the ground who were trying to tell our military where these weapons were, and we couldn’t really necessarily do anything about it. So why that excuse was used to justify listening to these people in their satellite phone conversations, I just have a hard time understanding anymore.

AMY GOODMAN: Adrienne Kinne, who gave the verbal waiver that you were to listen in?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Pretty much everything that I was ever directed or told came from my warrant officer, John Berry, who was our officer in charge for the duration of our mobilization.

AMY GOODMAN: Did you know it was illegal?

ADRIENNE KINNE: I definitely knew that that was something that military intelligence was not supposed to do, and I had never done that in the previous—by then, I think I had been in the military for about six-and-a-half years, and I was in active duty for four. And that was something we took incredibly seriously.

But people took 9/11 and the fear of terrorism to such extremes. My warrant officer actually said in the buildup to Shock and Awe that this was basically final retribution for 9/11 and that we were going to bomb those barbarians back to Kingdom Come. And this is the kind of guidance that was coming from our highest, highest person in charge. And talk about the racism and dehumanization that is just rampant in our military, it affects everybody everywhere, not just on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, but even working in an office building in the United States of America. And people took this fear and the fear of the unknown, and believing the administration when they said that Iraq was tied to 9/11, they basically used that to justify doing a lot of things that we should not have been doing.

AMY GOODMAN: Adrienne Kinne, what exactly—if you might go back and talk about what you heard of the NGOs talking to each other, explicitly, that you were listening to, which NGO were you listening to?

ADRIENNE KINNE: I really only remember bits and pieces, different names. I remember seeing—because we would have a queue, where all the—basically on our computer screen, where all of the conversations would pop up, and it would have the number, the time of the cut and the name of the organization, if we had identified who the phone number belonged to. A lot of our conversations were left unidentified, because we just did not have the people, manpower, needed to get through everything. And I think that that’s one of the reasons why it’s just so unfortunate that our government has set the net so wide that it will collect on organizations like Doctors Without Borders, the International Red Cross, Red Crescent. Those were the two that I remember most, but I know there were others.

And because we were listening to those conversations instead of blocking them from our system, which was possible, there were so many unidentified cuts that we never had time to get to. And I think that’s part of the problem with our government casting the net so wide and intercepting such a vast degree and amount of conversations, that there’s so much stuff that just slips through the cracks, and that if we could kind of get back to the basics of trying to collect on the terrorists instead of American citizens, we might actually have the opportunity to collect more intelligence that would be of actual value.

AMY GOODMAN: At what point did you start shifting your eavesdropping from Afghanistan to Iraq?

ADRIENNE KINNE: To the best of my knowledge, our—the satellite phone system picked up basically satellites that covered a huge swath of the region. And so, the way I remember it, basically, our mission was basically the entire area—Iraq, Afghanistan and all surrounding areas—for the entire duration of our mobilization. I do remember it shifting somewhat in focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, and this was definitely previous to our invasion and Shock and Awe. But as far as like an exact moment, I can’t remember that for sure.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about prewar intelligence, what information you were getting, what you were translating as an Arabic translator?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Previous to 9/11, when I was on active duty, everything seemed incredibly legitimate. We were collecting military targets in the Middle East relevant to our language. There was oversight. There were senior linguists, who would go through and quality control our translations. There were specific guidelines. There were—there was a lot of basic guidance and oversight as we worked through military intelligence.

And I don’t know if it was just the lack of having enough people, having enough guidance, if everything was just so chaotic in our military that all the rules basically went out the window after 9/11, but so much of that oversight and guidance—and we didn’t even have senior linguists in our mission who could go through and quality control our translations. It was basically, you know, a couple dozen reservists who were mobilized and basically put in charge of this new mission without really very much to any oversight throughout the duration of our mobilization.

AMY GOODMAN: You translated information for the Iraqi National Congress?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Yes. During the course of our mobilization—I think it might have been right after Shock and Awe—we received a fax. It was a multi-page fax, which, as we began to translate it, we realized that it basically laid out the location of all of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And due to the nature of the contents of that fax, as soon as we realized what the fax contained, that translation was sent via a critic report directly to the White House. And then we went through and continued to translate the fax and kind of send updates as need be. A critic—basically, if you find something that meets a critic criteria, then you have fifteen minutes to relay the information to the White House. And that’s what we did.

And actually, when I first started translating this fax with my fellow Arabic linguists, for a moment I thought maybe—maybe the administration was right, maybe our military was right, maybe Iraq did have all these weapons and they did have the intent to use them, and maybe the invasion was justified. I was against the invasion of Iraq. I was actually against the invasion of Afghanistan, because I thought we were doing things for the wrong reasons. But when we started to translate that fax, I thought maybe I was wrong.

And then, it took me maybe like ten minutes, and then I started thinking about the source of the fax and realizing that just because something is transmitted on a piece of paper does not mean it’s true. And when I basically shared my concern to our officer in charge, again I was told that “your job is to collect, you are not an analyst,” that other people will analyze the information. “You just collect and pass on, collect and pass on.” And that was always the guidance we were given.

Shortly after I was demobilized, I was reading a news magazine, and I saw a little blurb where it is said that the—we newly discovered that the Iraqi National Congress was actually feeding us misinformation. And I immediately, when I read that, thought to that fax and that critic report and really wondered to what level that intercept had been used to further justify the invasion of Iraq. And doing research about the Iraqi National Congress since then, I found out that senior military advisers and analysts were actually trying to make the case since December of 2002, or previously, that the Iraqi National Congress was not reliable and was not a reliable source of information.

And so, why we would allow information like that to be passed on to justify this invasion? To the best of my knowledge, if you find out that a critic is false, then you cancel the critic. So by the time we ended our mobilization, my officer in charge said that our critic was one of the only critics that had never been canceled. And so, even in August of 2003, people were still passing that intelligence off as valid. And meanwhile, come to find out, people knew for a long time that the Iraqi National Congress was not a reliable source of information.

AMY GOODMAN: Adrienne Kinne, we have to break again, but we’re going to come back to you to finish up this conversation. Adrienne Kinne is a former Army sergeant, worked in military intelligence, served for ten years, from 1994 to 2004. When we come back, I want to ask why you have chosen to speak out. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. We’ll be back with Adrienne Kinne in a moment.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for this hour is Adrienne Kinne, former Army sergeant who worked in military intelligence. She served for ten years, from 1994 to 2004. She is speaking to us from Vermont.

Adrienne Kinne, why did you decide to speak out? And welcome back to the satellite.

ADRIENNE KINNE: Hi. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you decide to speak out?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Oh, OK, sorry. Basically, when I left the military, I saw what was going on, but I kind of decided that I wanted to better serve my fellow soldiers in uniform by working at the VA, and so I put a lot of energy into finishing my degree and getting a job through the VA hospital.

And doing activist work for a long time, I thought that being an activist meant trying to advocate for change in Congress and our government, and so I was really very committed to trying to see change in our Congress, shifting the balance of power from the Republicans to the Democrats. That’s basically what I spent a lot of time doing in 2005 and 2006, building up to the election. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, I really thought that something would change, and I was very hopeful that finally the wars would be ended. And it was about that time that I moved to Vermont, and the beginning of 2007, I had moved up to Vermont, I was kind of looking for something new, something changing in our government and our society. And then the escalation was announced, and Congress went along with it. And that’s when I realized that if you want something to change, you have to be a part of demanding that change.

And I ended up going to my first demonstration against the war in Washington, D.C., on January 27, 2007, and I joined Iraq Veterans Against the War that day. And it was a very life-changing moment for me. And I know I just became a part of something, a struggle, with fellow veterans who had all been affected by the war on terror, fellow veterans and soldiers.

And, you know, we come from such a diverse background, so many different life experiences. We have everything ranging from anarchists to Socialists, Libertarians, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Greens—everything from one spectrum to another. And yet, we’re all committed to achieving IVAW’s three points of unity, which are immediate withdrawal from Iraq, reparations for the Iraqi people and full veterans’ benefits.

And to see so many people coming together in an organization that is just continuing to grow through such amazing grassroots organizing, it’s just something that really makes you feel like you can be a part of something better and be a part of the change that you want to see. And so, I’m very thankful that I found Iraq Veterans Against the War and that they made a space for me to be a part of their organization, considering that I did not serve on the ground in Iraq, but I definitely, through my service, supported the war in Iraq, and I am as committed as every other member of IVAW to seeing that this occupation ends.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you concerned, Adrienne Kinne, about speaking out now, having a top security clearance, being in military intelligence to now?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Most definitely. When I first joined IVAW, I really wouldn’t tell anybody what I did in the military. I basically told them that I listened to phone conversations in Iraq, and that was about the extent of it.

It was last year, the summer of last year, I was attending the US Social Forum, and it was just being part of that atmosphere where there are so many organizations and people committed to trying to make a difference and speaking out against torture, speaking out against spying, that I realized that I kind of knew something, and I had experienced something that not everybody else had, and that by sharing my experiences, if I could in any way encourage people that they are doing the right thing in speaking out against what our government is doing today, that I needed to do it.

And I certainly have gone through many phases of being very concerned and worried about what the reaction of our government might be. But I feel very strongly that if our government had upheld the Constitution, instead of violating it, that I never would have been put in this situation, and that by breaking that oath to the American people and by violating the Constitution, our government has created this situation, and not me.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, as we go back to the beginning of this broadcast, saying you saw the target list, that the Palestine Hotel was on it, hearing the documentary that we played that came from Telecinco, Hotel Palestine: Killing the Witness, your thoughts about the deaths on April 8, 2003, of the Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso of Telecinco?

ADRIENNE KINNE: It’s just so frustrating, I think, in many ways, not knowing whether or not we could have prevented it; never knowing what really was going on on the ground, whether or not people were told that the Palestine Hotel was a potential target, and that’s why it was eventually attacked; not knowing whether or not—who made the decision where. I mean, I was a very low rung on the whole totem pole of the military intelligence, and I can speak to my experiences and what I saw and what I witnessed, but not knowing, I think, what is going on in the higher levels, and I think that’s part of the reason why I did decide to speak out, because I really hope very strongly that other people who know a lot more than what I know will choose to do the same thing for the right reasons. And if by speaking out you can encourage other people to kind of follow suit, I think that’s part of what’s all about, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Adrienne Kinne, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Is this the first time that you have described the seeing of this target list and what you saw about the Hotel Palestine in a national broadcast?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you. Adrienne Kinne, former Army sergeant, worked in military intelligence.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Former Military Intelligence Officer Reveals US Listed Palestine Hotel in Baghdad as Target Prior to Killing Two Journalists in 2003

New Wing at Veterans Home Sits Empty, No Money for Staff as Wait List Grows to 400

May 13, 2008, La Salle, Ill – A brand new wing of the LaSalle Veterans Home is sitting empty and unused – with more than 400 veterans on a waiting list.

WBBM’s Steve Miller has the story.

The funding was in place to build the new wing of the LaSalle Veterans Home and construction was finished at least two months ago.

But now, that new, 80-bed wing sits waiting for money so staff can be hired – before it can admit patients.

“We’ve had over 450 veterans on our waiting list here.”

Martin Rue is superintendent with the LaSalle County Veterans Assistance Commission.

He says taxpayers spend $2,200 a month on veterans who aren’t in veterans homes.  And $929 a month on veterans who are in veterans homes, where he says they get more skilled care anyway.

“I really feel sorry for the taxpayers in the state of Illinois, and those veterans who, in their last hours of life, looking for a pillow to place their head, can’t even receive that when we know the beds will be there.”

The general assembly is considering a veterans bill that amounts to more than $8M, but Rue says the money is already there and the governor could release it any time.

Newsradio 780 has asked the governor’s office for a response.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on New Wing at Veterans Home Sits Empty, No Money for Staff as Wait List Grows to 400

May 12 VCS Weekly Update: Iraq and Afghanistan Wars By The Numbers

Shh . . . ! (Headline Now Appearing in Newspapers.) (VCS has the numbers the government doesn’t want you to see, the statistics the press frequently neglects to report . . .)

VCS spent the past two years sending Freedom of Information requests (FOIA) to the Pentagon and VA to get the facts about human costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. We use the documents to educate the public, reporters, and legislators about the facts.

Our attorneys in our lawsuit discovered that VA intentionally lied to conceal the suicide epidemic from the public. And the Sunday, May 11 edition of the New York Times published a scathing editorial lambasting VA for failing to plan for hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistn war casualites, writing “If this country gave back to wounded troops even a fraction of the commitment and service that it has received from them, they will be well cared for.”

We need your help to keep our FOIA campaign active. Please set up a monthly contribution today so we can keep up the work fighting for facts!

The numbers keep getting worse.  Here is heavy dose of real FOIA facts, compliments of VCS:

1,668,000 service members deployed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, about one-half of one percent of the 300 million U.S. population.

Nearly 100 percent involved in combat for more than six years in Afghanistan and more than five years in Iraq.

600,000 estimated casualties from both wars so far, where only half sought medical care, according to a new RAND study limited to brain damage, major depression, and post traumatic stress disorder.

500,000 deployed twice or more into combat – which increases risk of post traumatic stress disorder by 50 percent. 

300,000 treated at VA hospitals after their return home – and VA still lacks a plan to handle the flood of casualties so that veterans are not turned away.

288,000 filed disability claims against VA for military-related medical problems, and again VA has no plan to process these claims accurately or quickly.

58,300 forced to remain in war under stop loss – military orders that force a soldier to remain in the military past the end of their enlistment contract.  Many of these soldiers are on their second and third war deployment.

43,000 deployed combat after they were already declared unfit by a doctor – with broken legs, brain damage, and post traumatic stress disorder.

120 veterans complete a suicide every week. And 1,000 attempt suicide while under VA care each month. This is VCS in action, working hard to ensure that America does not forget about the sacrifices of our servie members, veterans, and families make.

The numbers for Iraq are equally devastating – up to one million killed, two million more internally displaced, and two million more international refugees, and a nation in shambles.

And, finally, here is a bit of humor. What would you do with $3 trillion dollars? Go to this web site to see, with a bit of fun, exactly what could have been done with the $3 trillion spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

For our new members and supporters who have not yet donated, please help us make a difference. Please click here to make a contribution today and support all that we do at Veterans for Common Sense to keep you on the cutting edge of salient facts.

What else isn’t the government or press telling us? Sign up for VCS daily updates so you don’t miss any more news, and ask your friends to sign up, too.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on May 12 VCS Weekly Update: Iraq and Afghanistan Wars By The Numbers

May 14 VCS Torture Lawsuit Update: Military Releases Documents About Prisoner Torture and Deaths

May 14, 2008, New York – The American Civil Liberties Union has obtained previously withheld documents from the Defense Department, including internal investigations into the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody overseas. Uncensored documents released as a result of the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit shed light on the deaths of detainees in Iraq and internal disagreement within the military over harsh interrogation practices used at Guantánamo Bay.  Veterans for Common Sense is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“These documents provide further evidence that the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad was not aberrational, but was widespread and systemic,” said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU. “They only underscore the need for an independent investigation into high-level responsibility for prisoner abuse.”

One of the documents released to the ACLU is a list of at least four prisoner deaths that were the subject of Navy Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) investigations. The NCIS document contains new information about the deaths of some of these prisoners, including details about Farhad Mohamed, who had contusions under his eyes and the bottom of his chin, a swollen nose, cuts and large bumps on his forehead when he died in Mosul in 2004. The document also includes details about Naem Sadoon Hatab, a 52-year-old Iraqi man who was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility in Nasiriyah in June 2003; the shooting death of Hemdan El Gashame in Nasiriyah in March 2003; and the death of Manadel Jamadi during an interrogation after his head was beaten with a stove at Abu Ghraib in November 2003.

Another document obtained by the ACLU provides further context to objections raised by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) about the use of harsh interrogation methods applied on Guantánamo prisoners. The memo prepared for CITF commander Brittain Mallow appears to have been drafted for September 2002, and identifies “unacceptable methods” involving “threats,” “discomfort,” and “sensory deprivation,” while also providing guidance to CITF agents on permissible interrogation methods for use on detainees. The memo suggests that CITF expressed disapproval of abusive methods used at Guantánamo as far back as September 2002. In December 2002, Mallow instructed his unit not to participate in “any questionable” interrogation techniques at the facility.

ACLU have also obtained a Defense Department criminal investigation file, Justice Department emails, State Department cables, and a Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedure.

In October 2003, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union — along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace — filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU’s subsequent FOIA lawsuit.  The previously withheld documents are available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/35271res20080514.html
 
In addition, many of the FOIA documents are also collected and analyzed in a recently published book by ACLU attorneys Jameel Jaffer and Singh, “Administration of Torture.” More information is available online at: www.aclu.org/administrationoftorture

The documents received in the ACLU’s FOIA litigation are online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia

Attorneys in the FOIA case are Lawrence S. Lustberg and Melanca D. Clark of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, P.C.; Jaffer, Singh and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Shayana Kadidal and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on May 14 VCS Torture Lawsuit Update: Military Releases Documents About Prisoner Torture and Deaths

Charges Dropped Against ’20th’ Highjacker – Claims Confession Elicited After Torture

May 12, 2008, San Juan, Puerto Rico – The Pentagon has dropped charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was alleged to have been the so-called “20th hijacker” in the Sept. 11 attacks, his U.S. military defense lawyer said Monday.

Mohammed al-Qahtani was one of six men charged by the military in February with murder and war crimes for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks. Authorities say al-Qahtani missed out on taking part in the attacks because he was denied entry to the U.S. by an immigration agent.

But in reviewing the case, the convening authority for military commissions, Susan Crawford, decided to dismiss the charges against al-Qahtani and proceed with the arraignment for the other five, said Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, the Saudi’s military lawyer.

Crawford dismissed the charges Friday without prejudice, meaning they can be filed again later, but the defense only learned about it Monday, Broyles told The Associated Press.

The attorney said he could not comment on the reasons for the dismissal until discussing the case with lawyers for the other five defendants. Officials previously said al-Qahtani had been subjected to a harsh interrogation authorized by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

5 others face charges
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, confirmed the case was proceeding against the five defendants and that their arraignment will be within 30 days of the charges being served at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Gordon declined further comment since the Office of Military Commissions had not yet released the formal announcement about the legal developments.

The five defendants include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the terrorist attacks in 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 people, and Ramzi Binalshibh, who is said to have been the main intermediary between the hijackers and al-Qaida leaders. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for all of them.

Their trial is the first capital case thus far before the military tribunals at Guantanamo, where the U.S. holds about 270 men on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban. The military has said it plans to prosecute about 80 prisoners in the first U.S. military war crimes tribunals since World War II.

Trials to be broadcast
Authorities have said they plan to broadcast the trials to military bases in the United States so relatives of the victims of the attacks can see the proceedings.

Critics of the tribunals have faulted a rule that allows judges to decide whether to allow evidence that may have been obtained with “coercion.” U.S. authorities have acknowledged that Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding by CIA interrogators and that al-Qahtani was treated harshly at Guantanamo.

Al-Qahtani last fall recanted a confession he said he made after he was tortured and humiliated at Guantanamo.

The alleged torture, which he detailed in a written statement, included being beaten, restrained for long periods in uncomfortable positions, threatened with dogs, exposed to loud music and freezing temperatures and stripped nude in front of female personnel.

The U.S. has alleged that al-Qahtani, who military records show is about 28, barely missed becoming the 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001. The Saudi was denied entry into the country by immigration agents at the airport in Orlando, Florida.

At the time, he had more than $2,400 in cash, no return plane ticket and lead hijacker Mohamed Atta was waiting for him, the military has said.

Separately Monday, Gordon said the Pentagon has not decided whether to appeal a ruling that ousted a top legal official from a detainee case scheduled to become the first to go to trial at Guantanamo Bay.

In a ruling last week, a military judge at Guantanamo found that Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the legal adviser for the tribunals, lacks neutrality and should not participate in the case against a Yemeni who is a former driver for Osama bin Laden. His trial is set for June 2.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Charges Dropped Against ’20th’ Highjacker – Claims Confession Elicited After Torture