Veterans for Common Sense

March 28, 2008 – The following information was released by the office of California Rep. Duncan Hunter:

As American forces confront the global terrorist threat on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, an equally serious threat exists here at home with the continuous outsourcing and erosion of our defense industrial base. The deterioration of our domestic defense industries, which helped carry us to victory in World War II and the Cold War, represents one of the greatest challenges to our security and the future success of our military forces.

Despite this fact, the list of U.S. defense contracts awarded to foreign competitors continues to grow, most recently with the addition of the French- and German-controlled European and Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) as the proposed manufacturer of the Air Force’s next refueling tanker. The initial $35 billion contract for 179 aircraft was awarded to EADS over the U.S.-based Boeing Co., a leading competitor in the aerospace industry that has built and supported the Air Force’s tanker fleet since the Eisenhower administration.

In 2005, the Navy chose an international group primarily composed of British and Italian manufacturers to build the next presidential helicopter, even though Sikorsky Aircraft, an American defense contractor, had manufactured the familiar Marine One helicopter since the Eisenhower years. Only several months earlier, the Brazilian jet maker Embraer was awarded a $6 billion contract to build the new Aerial Common Sensor reconnaissance aircraft.

Even the pistols and medium machine guns our Marines and soldiers are using on the battlefield today are no longer American-made. The 240G machine gun that replaced the venerable M-60, the standard machine gun from Vietnam to the first Gulf War, is manufactured by Fabrique Nationale, a Belgian company. The standard 9mm pistol carried by U.S. service personnel, which replaced the Colt M-1911, a weapon that was in service from 1911 through the late 1970s, is now made by the Italian company Berretta.

These examples clearly illustrate that foreign contractors are assuming a much greater role in the development and maintenance of America’s defenses. But as we become increasingly dependent on other countries for military resources and innovative technologies, we are becoming less capable of meeting our own critical defense needs.

In fact, when I was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and American troops began taking casualties from roadside bombs on the streets of Iraq, I sent out my team to locate more steel to armor and better protect their tactical vehicles. They found only one company left in the United States that could still produce high-grade armor plate steel.

The danger of this dependency also became evident when the Swiss company Micro Crystal refused to provide our military with components for the effective deployment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), otherwise known as smart bombs, during the first phase of the Iraq war. Because the Swiss government objected to American action in Iraq, it ordered the company to stop the shipment of JDAM components.

Given that our military relies on this weapons system to strike with precision and limit the potential for collateral damage, this could have cost time and lives. We were fortunately able to find alternative components through a domestic manufacturer, though it took several months.

These issues alone should be reason enough to begin restoring our defense manufacturing base and reverse the current course. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the continued selection of foreign contractors to build some of our weapons systems, it appears we have learned little so far.

Today, our nation’s defense-manufacturing base is at a crossroads. Current law requires that our military systems be manufactured with at least 50 percent of domestic-made materials. But when I wrote language into the House version of the annual Defense Authorization Act several years ago to raise this requirement to 65 percent, these provisions were met with strong opposition by the Bush administration and several of my Senate counterparts. Although these provisions were later removed from the bill, the discussion surrounding this effort valuably underscored the fact that our reliance on foreign suppliers is infringing on our industrial productivity and the operability of our armed forces.

Those who believe we do not need to worry about the health of our defense industrial base and propose free trade and globalization as remedies are wrong. Consider our high-tech defense industry, for example. In 2000, the Defense Department and National Security Agency became concerned about the shortage in domestic sources of supply for semiconductors, a necessary component for the next generation of weapons systems. These concerns prompted the agencies to jointly fund a “Trusted Foundry” to fabricate these integrated circuits domestically and rebuild this technical expertise in the U.S.

American companies that helped build our nation’s defenses, particularly over the last several decades, did so through years of experience and the talent of thousands of valuable engineers and technicians. But each time we outsource our most critical defense needs and award contracts to foreign suppliers, we lose this expertise, and, once lost, it is extremely difficult to regain.

The tanker contract award is just the latest case in what is becoming a standard practice in America today. As this decision is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office, I am carefully considering several courses of legislative action, in preparation for the approaching budget process, to ensure the next American tanker is built in the United States by American workers. Moreover, I intend to introduce legislation that prohibits the defense secretary from entering into contracts with beneficiaries of foreign subsidies, as appears to be the case with EADS, which offer companies unfair competitive advantages.

It is important that we also make greater investments in the research and development of new defense technology, as well as our domestic manufacturing capability. Together, these efforts will not only help create and keep American jobs, but will also ensure that our military services have a reliable source of supplies and equipment in future conflicts.

The father of free trade, Adam Smith, stated in his book, “The Wealth of Nations,” that an exception to this practice must be made when it comes to defense production. On this point, I will agree with him. And for those who say that opening our defense market engenders security cooperation, one need only look at the last request for NATO troops in the Afghan operation. This spring, 3,000 Marines will deploy to Afghanistan for the simple reason that our 26 NATO allies refused to come up with approximately 100 soldiers apiece.

Every time we send elements of our defense industrial base overseas, we are also outsourcing a piece of our security. We must reverse this damaging course and begin revitalizing our own defense industrial base in the interests of promoting a strong and prosperous America.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, is the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee.

April 1, 2008 – Modern life is loud. The jolting buzz of an alarm clock awakens the ears to a daily din of trucks idling, sirens blaring, televisions droning, computers pinging and phones ringing — not to mention refrigerators humming and air-conditioners thrumming. But for the 12 million Americans who suffer from severe tinnitus, the phantom tones inside their head are louder than anything else.

Often caused by prolonged or sudden exposure to loud noises, tinnitus (pronounced tin-NIGHT-us or TIN-nit-us) is becoming an increasingly common complaint, particularly among soldiers returning from combat, users of portable music players, and aging baby boomers reared on rock ’n’ roll. (Other causes include stress, some kinds of chemotherapy, head and neck trauma, sinus infections, and multiple sclerosis.)

Although there is no cure, researchers say they have never had a better understanding of the cascade of physiological and psychological mechanisms responsible for tinnitus. As a result, new treatments under investigation — some of them already on the market — show promise in helping patients manage the ringing, pinging and hissing that otherwise drives them to distraction.

The most promising therapies, experts say, are based on discoveries made in the last five years about the brain activity of people with tinnitus. With brain-scanning equipment like functional magnetic resonance imaging, researchers in the United States and Europe have independently discovered that the brain areas responsible for interpreting sound and producing fearful emotions are exceptionally active in people who complain of tinnitus.

“We’ve discovered that tinnitus is not so much ringing in the ears as ringing in the brain,” said Thomas J. Brozoski, a tinnitus researcher at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Springfield.

Indeed, tinnitus can be intense in people with hearing loss and even those whose auditory nerves have been completely severed. In the absence of normal auditory stimulation, the brain is like a driver trying to tune in to a radio station that is out of range. It turns up the volume trying but gets only annoying static. Richard Salvi, director of the Center for Hearing and Deafness at the State University of New York at Buffalo, said the static could be “neural noise” — the sound of nerves firing. Or, he said, it could be a leftover sound memory.

Adam Edwards, a 34-year-old co-owner of a wheel repair shop in Dallas, said he developed tinnitus four years ago after target shooting with a pistol. “I had all the risk factors,” he said. “I grew up hunting, I played drums in a band, I went to loud concerts, I have a loud work environment — everything but living next to a missile launch site.” His tinnitus, which he described as a “computer beeping” sound, was so intense and persistent that he needed sedatives to sleep at night.

Mr. Edwards says he has gotten relief from a device developed by an Australian audiologist, which became widely available in the United States last year. Manufactured by Neuromonics Inc. of Bethlehem, Pa., it looks like an MP3 player and delivers sound spanning the full auditory spectrum, digitally embedded in soothing music.

Similar to white noise, the broadband sound, tailored to each patient’s hearing ability, masks the tinnitus. (The music is intended to ease the anxiety that often accompanies the disorder.) Patients wear the $5,000 device, which is usually not covered by health insurance, for a minimum of two hours a day for six months. Since completing the treatment regimen last year, Mr. Edwards said his tinnitus had “become sort of like Muzak at a department store — you hear it if you think about it, but otherwise you don’t really notice.”

A small, company-financed study in the journal Ear & Hearing in April 2007 indicated that the Neuromonics method was 90 percent successful at reducing tinnitus. A larger study is under way to determine its long-term effectiveness.

Anne Howell, an audiologist at the Callier Center for Communication Disorders at the University of Texas at Dallas, said the Neuromonics device was a big improvement over older sound therapies that required wearing something that looked like a hearing aid all the time and took 18 to 24 months.

“The length of time was discouraging for many patients,” she said. “And a lot of them told me that wearing something that looks like a hearing aid would cause a problem in their professional life.”

Other treatments showing promise include surgically implanted electrodes and noninvasive magnetic stimulation, both intended to disrupt and possibly reset the faulty brain signals responsible for tinnitus. Using functional M.R.I. to guide them, neurosurgeons in Belgium have performed the implant procedure on several patients in the last year and say it has suppressed tinnitus entirely.

But the treatment is controversial. “It’s a radical option and not proven yet,” said Jennifer R. Melcher, an assistant professor of otology and laryngology at Harvard Medical School.

The magnetic therapy, similar to treatments used for depression and chronic pain, involves holding a magnet in the shape of a figure eight over the skull. Clinicians use functional M.R.I. to aim the magnetic pulses so they reach regions of the brain responsible for interpreting sound. Patients receive a pulse every second for about 20 minutes. “It works for some people but not for others,” said Anthony Cacace, professor of communication science and nerve disorders at Wayne State University in Detroit. Since tinnitus has so many causes, Dr. Cacace said, the challenge now is to find out which “subsets of patients benefit from this treatment.”

Researchers in Brazil have published a study indicating that a treatment called cranial-sacral trigger point therapy can relieve tinnitus in some head and neck trauma cases by releasing muscles that constrict hearing and neural pathways.

And drugs intended to treat alcoholism, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s and depression that alter levels of various neurotransmitters in the brain like serotonin, dopamine and gamma-aminobutyric acid have quieted tinnitus in some published animal and human studies.

“We’ve never been so hopeful,” said Dr. Salvi, of SUNY Buffalo, “of finding treatments for a disorder that haunts people and follows them everywhere they go.”

April 1, 2008 – Washington, DC – President Bush wants to bolster the multinational fight in Afghanistan by reminding NATO allies that the war is in their interest — and by persuading them to send more troops into battle.

But this will be a challenge for Bush, who was en route to Ukraine Monday at the start of a trip that will also lead to Romania, Croatia and Russia. The NATO alliance is strained currently and is engaged in soul-searching about its place and mission in a rapidly changing world.

Beyond Afghanistan, Bush is trying to score a breakthrough on a U.S.-based missile defense system in Europe. And he wants NATO to expand its borders.

At the center of the trip is the NATO summit, starting Wednesday in Bucharest, Romania. The war in Afghanistan is under fresh review as the 26-nation NATO alliance confronts al-Qaida and Taliban forces, rising violence and internal debate about whether member nations are contributing enough.

Bush’s administration expects to emerge from the summit with a strong allied statement about the commitment in Afghanistan — a message that could be backed by the limited promise of new troop deployments to Afghanistan, where NATO commanders say they need more muscle.

“We think we’re going to have some countries stepping up and doing more in Afghanistan,” Stephen Hadley, the president’s national security adviser, told reporters traveling with Bush on Air Force One. He declined to name those countries or say whether their expected troop additions will be enough.

“Let’s see what we get,” Hadley said. “We’ve all been saying that we all need to do more. We’ve also been saying this is going to be a long effort.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in Denmark ahead of the NATO summit, set measured expectations.

“I would be surprised if we saw commitments in Bucharest at a level that would fully meet all the requirements” for combat troops and military and police trainers, Gates said. “But we’ll just keep working at it.”

The United States wants not only more troops, but also fewer restrictions from some governments on how their troops can be used. Those restrictions are intended to limit the risk of casualties; U.S. officials complain that they also limit the usefulness of the forces.

NATO’s force is about 43,000-strong, but commanders are pleading for more troops in the south, where Taliban insurgents are wreaking the most havoc.

The United States is the biggest contributor of troops in Afghanistan, with 31,000 fighting men and women — about 17,000 as part of the NATO-led force, and 14,000 in a U.S.-led outfit in eastern Afghanistan that is training the Afghan army and conducting counterinsurgency operations.

Most of the fighting is done by troops from the U.S., Canada, Britain and the Netherlands.

Ahead of Bush’s trip, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for one, pledged to deploy more troops to fight the Taliban if Afghans also get more responsibility and if there is better coordination of nonmilitary efforts. Bush said that promise would help ensure the NATO meeting is a success.

Some European leaders are under pressure to pull back, though, and NATO is increasingly stretched thin.

Bush starts in Ukraine in a show of support for the country’s democratic reforms. He meets Tuesday with the country’s leaders and its opposition leader. The president and first lady Laura Bush are also set to visit a cathedral and a public school before departing for Romania.

At the summit, NATO leaders are expected to formally invite Croatia, Albania and perhaps Macedonia to join, expanding the alliance’s imprint in the Balkans. Bush supports that expansion and also wants Ukraine and Georgia to get on track for membership.

Meanwhile, Bush also has an upcoming date with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At week’s end in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi in Russia, the two will again discuss the missile defense system that the United States plans to base in Central Europe. It would involve 10 interceptor missiles based in Poland and a tracking radar system in the Czech Republic.

Moscow has been vehemently opposed to the idea, saying the intent is to weaken its nuclear deterrent. The United States denies that.

Hadley said Bush had talked to Putin about the matter personally, and in a letter he sent to Putin. He sounded optimistic about a breakthrough.

“We’re hopeful,” Hadley said. “We’re not going to resolve all our differences. You know, this is a complicated relationship.”

Before leaving Washington, Bush could not help but poke Congress on his way to his helicopter.

He said lawmakers in the Democratic-run Congress should pass a Colombia free-trade deal, a reform of the Federal Housing Administration and a government eavesdropping law intended to root out suspected terrorists. “They have a lot of work to do,” Bush said.

March 31, 2008 – Almost 20 years after his death, the Department of Veterans Affairs has recognized that an area Army veteran had a valid claim to service-related disability benefits.

“I wish he could’ve been alive to have it,” said Virginia Grimes, the widow of veteran Andrew Grimes. She will receive a service-connected death benefit compensation in light of this recognition.

Her husband, a Gibson County native, fought in Vietnam and Cambodia and had began filing paperwork with the Veterans Administration in 1987 to get benefits after he became ill. He died at age 40 on Dec. 5, 1988, after The American Legion Magazine had featured him in a story about Vietnam veterans’ filing for disability.

Grimes said her husband always believed his declining health and a rare lymphoma cancer were results of his exposure to the chemical defoliant Agent Orange during combat in the jungles of Cambodia in 1970.

“He was in infantry. They all walked in on the ground right after it was sprayed,” she said.

On his death bed, he asked his wife to continue fighting for the recognition. “He said, ‘Do not give up on this.'”

“I feel like I have fulfilled what he wanted. I feel more at peace now. This is something he wanted me to have,” said Grimes, who lives in Jackson.

She filed several times on behalf of her husband over the past two decades. With each new filing, new evidence was required.

“The years was just passing by. … I had been denied so many times,” she said. Response letters to her filings in the past said “what you have sent is not sufficient enough.”

Finally, last year Grimes looked at all the paperwork she had and found something she had not sent in before. It was her husband’s autopsy report along with an article off the Internet about the type of cancer he had.

“If I had not agreed to the autopsy, I never would’ve gotten it,” she said. That was apparently the new evidence that turned everything around.

In early March, she received a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs in Nashville stating that it had granted her claim related to the service-connected death of her husband. The letter was

dated Feb. 28 and signed by Jerry Mitchell, manager of the Veterans Service center.

“I was shocked when I got the letter. … When I opened it and read (it), I cried.”

Grimes hopes her experience will give hope to others.

“Anybody that is filing that is sincere, just don’t give up,” she said.

She had enlisted the help of U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., to file for service-connected widow’s compensation. Also, “the Veterans Affairs office in Jackson was so nice to me.”

Last April, her husband was among 77 veterans honored posthumously during the ninth annual “In Memory Day” for their non-combat injuries and emotional suffering caused directly by the Vietnam War.

That recognition, sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, was for veterans who were not eligible to have their names listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.

April 1, 2008 – On Tuesday, U.S. Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) and committee member Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) met with Veterans Affairs Secretary James Peake. They discussed funding for the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and a proposal to modify VA’s income threshold to make more middle-income veterans eligible for VA healthcare. Akaka, Sanders and other committee members have pressed Secretary Peake on both issues since his recent confirmation as VA Secretary.

“As we move through the final year of this Administration and this Congress, we must work together to find common ground for the sake of our veterans. I appreciate the Secretary’s willingness to work with us on these issues,” said Akaka. Secretary Peake agreed during the meeting to look more closely into the income threshold for veterans, as well as strengthening support for the National Center for PTSD.

Senators Akaka and Sanders wrote Secretary Peake on January 24, 2008, urging him to dedicate more funds to the National Center for PTSD. The Center has taken on a larger mission and workload in recent years, due in part to the increased number of veterans suffering from PSTD. Already, more than 100,000 servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have reported mental health disorders, according to the Congressional Research Service. Meanwhile, the PTSD Center’s budget, adjusted for inflation, has been flat for the past half-decade, and overall staff levels have been reduced since 1999.

The Senators and Secretary also discussed health care eligibility for middle income veterans, known as “Priority 8” by the VA. In response to a question from Chairman Akaka at a hearing on February 13, 2008, Secretary Peake stated that he was willing to work with the Committee to consider modifying the policy, adopted in 2003, that prohibits middle-income veterans from enrolling in the VA health care system. On March 14, 2008, Majority Members of both the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees wrote Secretary Peake to follow up. Today in some geographical regions, veterans making as little as $28,430 are considered too wealthy to enroll for VA heath care.

Washington, DC (AP) — Thе Pentagon оn Tuesday mаdе public a now-defunct legal memo thаt approved thе uѕе оf harsh interrogation techniques аgаіnѕt terror suspects, saying thаt President Bush’s wartime authority trumps аnу international ban оn torture.

Thе Justice Department memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines legal justification fоr military interrogators tо uѕе harsh tactics аgаіnѕt al-Qaida аnd Taliban detainees overseas — ѕо lоng аѕ thеу did nоt specifically intend tо torture thеіr captors.

Evеn ѕо, thе memo noted, thе president’s wartime power аѕ commander іn chief wоuld nоt bе limited bу thе U.N. treaties аgаіnѕt torture.

“Our previous opinions make clear thаt customary international law іѕ nоt federal law аnd thаt thе president іѕ free tо override іt аt hіѕ discretion,” said thе memo written bу John Yoo, whо wаѕ thеn deputy assistant attorney general fоr thе Office оf Legal Counsel.

Criminal law іѕ аmоng thе mоѕt complex areas оf law. It takes a special type оf person tо bесоmе a criminal defense attorney. Thеѕе type оf attorneys muѕt work wіth clients tо prove thеіr innocence оf crimes thаt range frоm minor tо major offenses. Go through https://thedefenders.net/ for more information.

Criminal law іѕ thе bоdу оf law commonly referred tо аѕ penal law. Thіѕ bоdу оf law prosecutes a person оr entity bу thе federal оr state government fоr crimes thаt аrе classified аѕ criminal. Criminal justice incorporates thе theories оf punishment, deterrence, incapacitation аnd rehabilitation. Bу imposing sentences fоr criminal acts thе law seeks tо serve justice, peace аnd social order. Here is the best criminal defense law firm in Nashville, please visit here.

Criminal law deals wіth a wide array оf crimes. Criminal defense attorneys defend clients whо hаvе bееn charged wіth crimes thаt range frоm minor tо major offenses. Suсh offenses include murder, manslaughter, arson, assault, DUI/DWI, fraud, identity theft, child pornography, sex crimes аnd a host оf оthеr crimes. Here you will get the best option at domestic violence attorney in Denver.

Criminal defense attorney, аѕ dо аll attorneys, muѕt рut aside thеіr personal beliefs аnd opinions оf a person іn order tо properly аnd fully defend thеm оf criminal charges. Thіѕ іѕ реrhарѕ оnе оf thе mоѕt difficult things tо dо. Thеѕе attorneys muѕt nоt pass personal judgment оn a client charged wіth heinous crimes ѕuсh аѕ murder, rape оr еvеn child molestation. You can read this article for your case all information.

Thеу muѕt аlѕо tо thе best оf thеіr ability defend a client whо thеу mау personally believe tо bе guilty оf thе crime іn whісh thеу аrе charged. Agаіn, thеу muѕt рut aside personal beliefs аnd opinions аnd defend a client thаt hаѕ bееn charged wіth committing unspeakable acts.

The memo also offered a defense in case any interrogator was charged with violating U.S. or international laws.

“Finally, еvеn іf thе criminal prohibitions outlined аbоvе applied, аnd аn interrogation method mіght violate thоѕе prohibitions, necessity оr self-defense соuld provide justifications fоr аnу criminal liability,” thе memo concluded.

Thе memo wаѕ rescinded іn December 2003, a mere nіnе months аftеr Yoo sent іt tо thе Pentagon’s tор lawyer, William J. Haynes. Thоugh іtѕ existence hаѕ bееn known fоr years, іtѕ release Tuesday marked thе fіrѕt tіmе іtѕ contents іn full hаvе bееn mаdе public.

Haynes, thе Defense Department’s longest-serving general counsel, resigned іn late February tо return tо thе private sector. Hе hаѕ bееn hotly criticized fоr hіѕ role іn crafting Bush administration policies fоr detaining аnd trying suspected terrorists thаt ѕоmе argue led tо prisoner abuses аt thе detention center іn Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Yoo’s memo bесаmе раrt оf a debate аmоng thе Pentagon’s civilian аnd military leaders аbоut whаt interrogation tactics tо allow аt overseas facilities аnd whеthеr U.S. troops mіght face legal problems domestically оr іn international courts.

Alѕо оf concern wаѕ whеthеr techniques used bу U.S. interrogators mіght someday bе used аѕ justification fоr harsh treatment оf Americans captured bу opposing forces.

Thе Justice Department hаѕ opened аn internal investigation іntо whеthеr іtѕ tор officials improperly authorized оr reviewed thе CIA’s uѕе оf waterboarding, whісh simulates drowning, whеn interrogating terror suspects. It wаѕ unclear whеthеr thе Yoo memo, whісh focuses оnlу оn military interrogators, wіll bе раrt оf thаt inquiry.

Thе declassified memo wаѕ released аѕ раrt оf аn American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit tо force thе Bush administration tо turn оvеr documents аbоut thе government’s wаr оn terror. Thе document аlѕо wаѕ turned оvеr tо lawmakers.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said іtѕ release “represents аn accommodation оf Congress’ oversight іntеrеѕt іn thе area оf wartime interrogations.”

Jameel Jaffer, director оf thе ACLU’s national security project, said Yoo’s legal reasoning puts “literally nо limit аt аll tо thе kinds оf interrogation methods thаt thе president саn authorize.”

“The whоlе point оf thе memo іѕ obviously tо nullify еvеrу possible legal restraint оn thе president’s wartime authority,” Jaffer said. “The memo wаѕ meant tо allow torture, аnd that’s exactly whаt іt did.”

Thе 81-page legal analysis largely centers оn whеthеr interrogators саn bе held responsible fоr torture іf torture іѕ nоt thе intent оf thе questioning. And іt defines torture аѕ thе intended sum оf a variety оf acts, whісh соuld include acid scalding, severe mental pain аnd suffering, threat оf imminent death аnd physical pain resulting іn impaired bоdу functions, organ failure оr death.

The “definition of torture must be read as a sum of these component parts,” the memo said.

The memo also includes past legal defenses of interrogations that Yoo wrote are not considered torture, such as sleep depravation, hooding detainees and “frog crouching,” which forces prisoners to crouch while standing on the tips of their toes.

“This standard permits some physical contact,” the memo said. “Employing a shove or slap as part of an interrogation would not run afoul of this standard.”

The memo concludes that foreign enemy combatants held overseas do not have defendants’ rights or protections from cruel and unusual punishment that U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. It also says that Congress “cannot interfere with the president’s exercise of his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during a war.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the memo “reflects the expansive view of executive power that has been the hallmark of this administration.” He called for its release four months ago.

“It is no wonder that this memo … could not withstand scrutiny and had to be withdrawn,” said Leahy, D-Vt. “This memo seeks to find ways to avoid legal restrictions and accountability on torture and threatens our country’s status as a beacon of human rights around the world.”

Associated Press writer Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

March 31, 2008 – New Britain, CT — Capt. Brian Letendre’s presence on Pendleton Road was short-lived but memorable.

The Marine sold his house in 2005, kissed his wife and son goodbye and headed to Iraq, where he would die in combat on May 3, 2006.

What remained of the Letendres’ life on Pendleton Road were memories of the conversations and the brief but frequent interactions they had shared with their neighbors.

On March 8, members of the community commemorated the Letendres’ 18 months on the quiet street by renaming a small patch of land Captain Brian S. Letendre USMC Memorial Park.

Letendre’s then 4-year-old son, Dillon, left his handprints at the foot of a granite monument honoring his father and listened as his mother addressed a community that embraced Letendre, an avid outdoorsman from Virginia, as one of its own.

“To me, it’s just amazing,” Autumn Letendre said. “Some of these people, they hardly knew us — they maybe waved to us as they walked around the block … but to do something like this when you don’t know somebody is exactly what Brian was doing and he had a passion. That’s why he volunteered to go back on this second mission.”

Communities across the country have created similar ways to honor veterans killed in the Iraq war. Unlike the large, symbolic monuments that paid tribute to the war dead after the Civil War and world wars, these have become more personalized.

The pattern, which began after the Vietnam War, allows communities to remember individual soldiers and Marines rather than a faceless, nameless group.

Personal Remembrances

In contrast to World War II, which claimed the lives of 405,000 fighters, the fighting in Iraq has taken the lives of about 4,000 American troops. With fewer casualties, communities have been able to create memorials to individual service members.

Much of the momentum for modern-day memorials comes from Vietnam veterans, said Linda Schwartz, the state commissioner for veterans’ affairs and a Vietnam veteran.

“The war there was not popular, but at the same time, people, I think, want to make up for what happened in the past,” she said. “It’s kind of a legacy of the war that we will not turn our backs on the people that go to war.”

Her department has created a multimedia memorial that is temporarily in Waterford, one of the first Connecticut towns to mourn the loss of a Marine killed in Iraq. The memorial combines pictures of dead soldiers and Marines with “American Anthem,” sung by Norah Jones. The approach takes the reams of names inscribed onto the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall to a more vivid level.

“You can look at names, but when you see the faces, then you know how much [more] those people had to live and how much their sacrifices really mean because the war is different,” Schwartz said. “These are citizen soldiers and they come from every town and city in our state.”

In West Hartford, town leaders and residents have honored Lance Cpl. Lawrence R. Philippon through memorials at his old high school, the town center and the ice-skating rink where he worked and played hockey and along a stretch of Route 4 renamed in his honor.

In Suffield, the name of Cpl. Stephen R. Bixler will be affixed to a postal office near his childhood home on Mountain Road. Bixler’s father, Richard, a letter carrier, passes the building on his way to work each day.

In Milford, officials dedicated a park in honor of Cpl. Jordan Pierson, a Marine who died in Iraq on Aug. 25, 2006. Pierson’s mother, Beverley Pierson, looks out at the park from her window each night to make sure the flag is lit.

A Comfort To Families

The memorials have given the grieving families a sense of comfort in knowing that their loved ones have not been forgotten.

“We have this huge void,” said Leesa Philippon, the mother of Lance Cpl. Philippon. “These ceremonies and the fact that people remember — they can’t fill the void, but they certainly help to bandage it.”

The decision to name roads after Philippon and Bixler seems impersonal at first, but a closer look reveals just how intertwined those stretches of asphalt were with their lives.

Philippon used to drive along Route 4 to have doctors at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington treat his sports injuries. He took the same road to have his wisdom teeth pulled, to run and bike along West Hartford’s reservoir and to fill his gas tank.

After Philippon died, the road became another way for the Philippon family to remember him. It was the only road that was available to be named after Philippon, but it was also the most fitting, Leesa Philippon said.

“We drive by that stretch of highway all the time,” she said.

Suffield residents have honored Bixler in many ways, including a Memorial Day picnic that drew 200 people last year, a bench on the town green and a piece of Route 190 East that bears his name.

Like many Suffield residents, Bixler often drove along Route 190 East, one of two ways to reach the closest shopping areas in the neighboring town of Enfield.

The Bixlers, like the Philippons, take the road even when using another one would be more convenient.

“It just brings back another memory of Steve,” Richard Bixler said. “We just remember everything about him.”

A Lasting Presence

Daily reminders, such as the plaque honoring Bixler that adorns the post office where his father works and the plaque at his old high school, help reassure his family that his sacrifice and the sacrifices of others haven’t been forgotten.

When Philippon’s son died on May 8, 2005, it was Capt. Brian Letendre who notified the family.

The family was among dozens who ignored a persistent, bone-chilling rain to attend Letendre’s dedication service in New Britain.

“He was a wonderful individual and treated us like family,” Leesa Philippon said. “Even though he is not a Connecticut citizen, he is being held as one and we are very happy about that.”

Captain Brian S. Letendre USMC Memorial Park is across the street from the Letendres’ former home. The young family lived on Pendleton Road for less than two years, but it was where they established a family routine.

Those memories are now cemented in the handprints that Dillon left behind at the monument, the same spot where he would often toss baseballs during family games.

The family left the neighborhood in 2005, after Brian Letendre volunteered to return to Iraq. Autumn and Dillon Letendre moved to Indiana to be close to relatives.

Shortly after Brian Letendre died on May 3, 2006, one of his neighbors on Pendleton Road petitioned the city to rename the neighborhood park after Letendre.

A granite stone, donated by a local business owner, was installed in the park, with a bench inscribed with Letendre’s favorite quote.

It was the first time in at least 24 years that the city dedicated a park to someone.

Autumn Letendre, who was reminded of a time when her son blazed a trail on a Kawasaki Big Wheel and her husband climbed the tree in front of their house and sat his son on his knee, plans to visit Pendleton Road again.

“Dillon’s only a child,” Autumn Letendre said, “but when he’s an adult, I think this will be another location to place the puzzles of his life together, cause I’m sure there will be many.”

March 29, 2008 – James Webb, the Vietnam vet and senator from Virginia who was once secretary of the Navy, likes to share the chart he prepared for five of his Senate colleagues. They are men who fought in World War II and afterward went to college and even law school on the American taxpayer, a free ride in exchange for their service. Webb’s chart quantifies how much of their education costs would have been covered if they had served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not even close.

In 1944, President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, commonly known as the GI Bill. It was one of the most visionary and transformative pieces of legislation in American history, providing free education for returning veterans.

Its champions believed it was the moral response to the sacrifice those service members had made, but it also solved an economic and social problem.

An influx of millions of unemployed and untrained men into the labor force could have triggered another Great Depression. But with 5 million of those soldiers becoming students instead, the result was the ascendancy of the middle class and a period of enormous prosperity.

Every dollar spent on the GI Bill was multiplied many times over in benefits to the postwar U.S. economy.
But government institutions are notoriously amnesiac. College costs have escalated, and benefits have shrunk.

Service members are surprised to discover that the grateful nation that made it possible for Sen. John Warner to go to both college and law school and Sen. Frank Lautenberg to graduate from an Ivy League university won’t even cover three years at a public institution, much less a private college.

Members of the National Guard and Reserves, who have been a linchpin of the current conflicts, receive only a fraction of that help.

“Watch the commercials,” says Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

“It looks as though you’re going to be able to go wherever you want. People ask all the time, ‘Don’t you all go to school for free?'”
The answer is no, but Webb is the author of legislation that would help change that. His revamped GI Bill would cover the full cost of the most expensive public institution in any given state; World War II vets like Lautenberg and Warner are enthusiastic supporters, as are dozens of other senators.

(Oddly enough, Webb has not been able to get John McCain, who received the ultimate taxpayer-funded education at the Naval Academy, to take a position on the bill.)

The source of the opposition is shocking: the Department of Defense, whose leaders argue that offering enhanced educational opportunities to soldiers would hurt retention.

Military brass apparently tremble at the notion that multiple deployments, starvation wages and inadequate medical care might not be enough to hold on to their people. Of course, this is the military brass who have had to lower age and ability standards despite spending billions to try to entice young men and women to join up.

It does not seem to have occurred to them that a better long-range plan would be to offer true educational incentives so that more focused and ambitious people would enlist.
Webb says, “This will expand the recruiting base because you could approach smart people just finishing high school, who are worried about paying for college, and say, ‘If you serve your country, you’ll get a first-class education.'”

Because of the DOD opposition, Webb has had a hard time prying loose estimates of how much these expanded benefits will cost, but at this point he thinks the figure is about $2 billion.

That’s half what is spent annually on recruitment and the cost of only a couple of days’ worth of war in Iraq. But, more important, Rieckhoff says it’s one of those costs he suspects the American people would support happily.

“If the president stood up tomorrow and said, ‘I need $2 billion to send vets to college,’ people would be doing bake sales and carwashes across America,” he says. “They can find that kind of money in the seat cushions on Capitol Hill.”

The original GI Bill set the standard for innovative and audacious legislation. It was right in both senses of that word: the sensible thing to do, and the moral thing as well. And it helped expunge the shameful treatment of World War I veterans, many of whom had found themselves unemployed and destitute.
The Department of Defense says it’s a different era now, with a war that drags on and a volunteer Army, than it was when the GI Bill was first signed.

But it’s the same era, too. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that unemployment among young veterans is three times the national average. Already some Iraq vets are homeless and have substance-abuse problems.

Offering these men and women a college education is the least we can do. It’s not free; they’ve already paid, in Fallujah and Kabul. If Congress wants an economic-stimulus package, this is a great one.

A Topeka, Kan., lawyer and national commander of the American Legion, Harry Colmery, was the architect of the original GI Bill. He asked a question that is as resonant today as it was then: “If we can spend 200 to 300 billion dollars to teach our men and women to kill, why quibble over a billion or so to help them to have the opportunity to earn economic independence and to enjoy the fruits of freedom?”

March 30, 2008 – The Iraq war seems no closer to resolution today than when it began five years ago. The daily stories of death, setbacks and gains bleed together like a list of mayhem on a police blotter, rarely jolting us anymore from our safe slumber back home. Two new books try to do just that by tallying the war’s costs from these daily ledgers. Although each has a different focus, both accountings draw the same picture of hopelessness.

The most enlightening is “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda J. Bilmes. They matter-of-factly dissect the staggering monetary cost of the war and the human devastation behind the ever-increasing bill. In “Defeat,” Jonathan Steele uses the region’s history and his own extensive reporting on the ground for the Guardian to provide ammunition for his thesis, that “the occupation was flawed from the start.”

Both books are deeply critical of the rationale for going to war and the way it is being waged. But Stiglitz and Bilmes focus on a track less worn than Steele’s. They follow the money, ferreting out exactly how it was spent, explaining how we’ll be paying the bill — one they calculate to be at least $3 trillion — for decades to come and suggesting where all that money could have been used more effectively.

For instance, $3 trillion is enough to provide the nation’s 8.3 million uninsured children with health coverage for about 18 years. It is worth noting that $3 trillion is their “excessively conservative” estimate of the war’s total cost when all is said and done.

“The Three Trillion Dollar War” isn’t likely to be an Oprah Book Club selection — its clinical prose and abundant lists don’t make for a leisurely read. But its statistics are a damning indictment of how the war has been conducted and a wake-up call for American taxpayers, who for the most part have remained untouched by a conflict that churns through money and lives on a daily basis. Borrowing the phrase “there is no free lunch,” Stiglitz and Blimes describe how hefty the bill will become if we don’t change course.

They note that the United States has been in Iraq more than a year longer than it fought World War II, and that the “cost of direct U.S. military operations — not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans — already exceeds the cost of the twelve-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.”

Deficit spending has hidden this cost, giving Americans “the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter.” But signs of strain are everywhere. The war has contributed to the ballooning national debt (adding about $1 trillion so far) and helped fuel the steep rise in oil prices (from about $35 a barrel in February 2003 to more than $100 a barrel today). The authors cite the tens of thousands of injured Iraq war veterans confronting squalid conditions at under-funded U.S. veterans’ hospitals and a Kafkaesque bureaucracy that has produced a backlog of more than 400,000 disability claims, about 25{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of which have been pending for more than six months.

Some veterans have been waiting for years. One young Texan who was wounded in 2004 got a visit from President Bush and a Purple Heart. But according to the authors, he didn’t receive disability benefits for three years and got them recently only because Bilmes informed veterans’ advocates, who alerted the media.

Many injured veterans have been charged for equipment no longer in their possession, such as body armor and night visions goggles probably left on the battlefield after they were wounded. The Department of Defense, the authors note, has pursued “hundreds of battle-injured soldiers for payment of non-existent military debts.” Such collection efforts are striking considering the money that has been spent in multimillion-dollar no-bid contracts to private firms backstopping the military effort. Although much of their discussion of veterans’ mistreatment falls under the rubric of the Bush administration’s alleged efforts to cut or hide costs, Stiglitz and Bilmes also note that the cost of care is being shifted to the veteran and the veteran’s family, spreading the war’s emotional and monetary toll even wider.

The administration “has not flinched at asking for ever higher amounts of cash to pay troops while they are in combat, and it has not balked at the astronomical demands of private contractors such as Halliburton and Blackwater Security,” the authors complain. But it has “behaved as if there were a direct conflict of interest between funding the war and taking care of the veterans after they come home.”

Nor has war achieved the administration’s goals, Stiglitz and Blimes write, noting that Iraq has “descended into internecine conflict,” ranking above only Somalia and Myanmar in corruption. As for the war helping to bring democracy to the Middle East, the authors note that now “even the more modest goal of a stable and democratic Iraq appears unattainable.”

Steele’s “Defeat” also has a sense of exasperation at its core. He argues that the Bush administration’s belief that the troops would be welcomed as liberators disregards a long history of ambivalence and mistrust of the West by Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world. After toppling Saddam Hussein, Steele writes, the actions of coalition forces on the ground exacerbated that skepticism.

Steele is certainly not the only author to give Iraqis a voice, but his interviews with many locals are among the book’s strongest suits and they help him to lay out the reasoning behind his central argument: “The day on which Bush decided to have an occupation was the day he ensured its defeat.”

Although many may not agree with Steele’s overarching thesis of predestined doom, he, like other authors before him, provides plenty of examples of why U.S. intervention in Iraq has been a failure. Hubris, he shows, has kept the invaders out of touch with the population, while fear has led to the killing and incarceration of a multitude of innocent civilians.

Steele writes of a Baghdad veterinarian and his high-school-age son who described being stopped at a U.S. checkpoint in 2003, then taken into custody after soldiers found a pistol in their car, a common accouterment for Iraqis seeking a measure of safety in postwar Iraq. The father was released after a few weeks, but the boy spent 66 days in various jails, often living on about a cup of water a day. “At no time was I questioned, interrogated, or charged. It was punishment without trial,” the boy told Steele. “When the Americans first came to Baghdad I was happy, but I don’t want to speak about my feelings towards them now.”

Uncontrolled firing on civilians has been an endemic problem. While covering the war, I witnessed Marines at a makeshift checkpoint repeatedly open fire on civilian cars fleeing Baghdad. Steele cites documents outlining similar examples, noting the case of a driver killed for failing to get out of his car when warning shots were fired; an sergeant noted in the file that the driver likely didn’t know how to respond, adding, “If I was in his place I would have stayed put too.”

The question is what to do now. Both books argue that staying the course in Iraq is not an option. As Steele puts it, Bush’s goals of democracy, stability and security may one day be achieved, but they “cannot be imposed through the barrel of a foreign gun.” And even if those goals could be accomplished by remaining longer, how much more are Americans willing to pay? Stiglitz and Bilmes argue that the costs have already become too high.

“Staying another two years will simply add another 1,000 or more American bodies to the 4,000 who have already died in vain, and another 10,000 or more casualties to the 60,000 [Americans] who have already been injured,” they conclude. “When framed the correct way — not whether we should leave, but when we should leave — exit becomes simpler. It is a bleak situation. Leaving sooner rather than later is the only way to stop it from getting worse.” *

March 29, 2008 – Dr. Ward Casscells is assistant secretary of defense for health affairs. A prominent Houston cardiologist with interests ranging from disaster preparedness to bird flu, Casscells shook his life up when he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves in 2005, then accepted President Bush’s nomination in 2007 to become the military’s top health officer. Casscells, who was in Houston last week to speak at a nursing conference, talked with Houston Chronicle reporter Todd Ackerman about a wide range of issues, including the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and his own battle with cancer.

Q: So how do you find Washington compared to Houston?

A: It’s less homogenous, less of a city, doesn’t have that big civic pride. It’s more where the country comes to talk and make decisions.

Q: What’s been the biggest challenge?

A: Walter Reed, Walter Reed, Walter Reed. We’ve made good progress. It’s always better when you get all sorts of people looking over your shoulder. Patient satisfaction is improving, but public perception is lagging. There’s two new polls out — one found 75 percent of our patients think military health care is on the right track. The other found that only 21 percent of the public does.

Q: What’s the underappreciated health issue that soldiers in Iraq face?

A: We talk a lot about concussions and traumatic brain injury, but the biggest challenge is the psyche. Those who feel we’ve done good over there face the least problems. Those who feel our activities there are a mistake and those who feel they let the team down are at higher risk.

Q: Do you have an opinion about Gulf War syndrome, the mysterious illness some veterans think was caused by wartime exposure to biological and chemical toxins. Do you think that link is real?

A: It’s hard to sort out the component that’s psychological. There’s some suggestive evidence, but it’s not very strong. That doesn’t rule it out — the absence of evidence isn’t proof. But what is clear is, whatever triggered it, we owe those veterans care.

Q: We spend something like 10 times more on bioterrorism preparedness than on hurricane preparedness. Is that really justified?

A: Maybe not. It is true that local governments need the authority to make their own plans. In Biloxi, you want money for hurricanes, not the Ebola virus or anthrax.

Q: Was bird flu overhyped?

A: I don’t think so. But of course, I was one of the big hypers. You never prevent a pandemic, which comes every 30, 40 years, but it’s important to be as prepared as possible.

Q: Isn’t there a danger people will start tuning out public health officials when these catastrophes don’t materialize?

A: That’s a concern, certainly. We’re at the point where, when fire alarms go off in buildings, almost no one responds. Are we at that point with bird flu? I don’t think so, but it’s a significant risk. Though you can’t be sure, H5N1, the current bird flu, probably isn’t going to cause a pandemic — it still needs a number of major mutations. But it might be H6N1, or whatever combination of letters and numbers they give the next virus.

Q: People in the Medical Center know you have prostate cancer, but I’ve never heard you talk about it. Can you? I’d heard it was pretty advanced.

A: It was terrible. I was dying. I always had great medical care, but my doctors made a mistake. Even though I was always a cancerphobe, often going in for tests, by the time it was diagnosed, it had spread from head to toe, to my skull and my liver. I was told I probably had three years to live. But an M.D. Anderson doctor told me to disregard such prognoses and put me on constantly changing combinations of drugs that have kept me in good health for almost seven years now. I have chronic prostate cancer — I take 52 pills a day — but I’m still here.

Q: And yet, despite all that, you enlisted in the Army Reserves at 52. What was basic training like at that age?

A: It was hard. I trained for a couple of months before, and I still struggled. I struggled with the heat, the cold, the exercises, the obstacle course, everything.

Q: So why did you do it? You’ve got three kids and a potentially deadly disease. Why take on so much?

A: As I’ve gotten older, I’ve gotten more adventuresome. I want to set an example for the kids, and it keeps me from focusing on my own problems.

Q: What will a change in administration mean for your office?

A: We’ll all submit our letters of resignation Jan. 20, then assist in the transition process. (Barack) Obama and (Hillary) Clinton will be pleased to find the military is more favorable to women and minorities than any institution in the country, that it operates in an objective, non-sexist, non-prejudiced way. (John) McCain will take that for granted. But since he knows the military so well, he’ll reach deeper down in the organization and hand-pick not just, say, the secretary of defense but numerous layers below.