Veterans for Common Sense

December 23, 2007 – Soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly running afoul of the law, bringing the stress of war to Colorado Springs’ streets.

Most of it is small-time stuff. But some of the allegations against soldiers in the past three years have been serious. This month, police said a crime ring of Fort Carson Iraq war veterans was responsible for the deaths of two GIs.

The volume of military-related crime off-post is beginning to tax civilian law enforcement authorities. Felony El Paso County jail bookings for service members have jumped from 295 in 2005 to 471 so far this year. During that time, the number of soldiers assigned to the post stayed about the same, around 17,500.

“It doesn’t take a study to know the potential for problems is going to be there,” said Colorado Springs police Sgt. Jeff Jensen, whose agency is girding for issues with nearly 4,000 soldiers due back in the next three weeks. “It’s huge. It affects us from all standpoints. The workload alone is increasing as the population increases.”

Commanders at Fort Carson acknowledge that soldiers coming home from a year in combat often have difficulty fitting into the society they went to Iraq or Afghanistan to defend.

It’s hard to turn off some of the reactions that will save your life in combat, but
which will lead to grief in a bar, said Nate Nugin, who oversees Fort Carson training programs for returning soldiers.

“It’s just about understanding they are back and what was necessary for them to do in the theater of operations doesn’t translate well back here,” Nugin said as he oversaw five days of mandatory classes for soldiers who returned last week from Iraq with Fort Carson’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team.

The Army has experienced increases in some types of crime on post that aren’t included in El Paso County statistics.

Last year, for instance, reports of thefts and domestic violence climbed over past years. This year, commanders point to some promising statistics, including a decline in drunken driving arrests on post to 200 this year — the lowest level since 2004.

The prison of Iraq

Experts say the war can fundamentally change the soldiers sent to fight it.

The El Paso County Public Defender’s Office this year began tracking the number of soldiers it serves and found a disturbing trend among those accused of serious crimes.

“They did not have drug addictions before” the war, said Deputy Public Defender Sheilagh McAteer, who has been seeing more uniforms in her office in recent years. “They had no criminal histories before the war.” Normally, people want tо avoid аnd wind uр аnу criminal charges аѕ soon аѕ possible – аnd a criminal defense lawyer іѕ thе best person tо resort tо fоr thіѕ purpose. Mоѕt оf thе people fіnd thе legal process difficult tо grasp аnd proceeding wіth legal actions ѕееmѕ like аn impossible task. Hеrе іѕ whеrе thе criminal attorneys соmе іn. It bесоmеѕ thеіr responsibility tо explain thе legal procedures аnd effects оf еvеrу legal action thаt іѕ tо bе taken аlоng wіth fighting fоr thеіr clients. Thеѕе attorneys аrе thе best means оf strengthening oneself tо proceed thrоugh legal action. A defense attorney аlѕо serves аѕ criminal trial legal representative аѕ thеу tаkе care оf hоw thе trial procedures ѕhоuld bе conducted. Thе main responsibility оf a Manassas criminal defense lawyer involves representing his/her client whо іѕ alleged wіth committing аnу sort оf crime. Thе primary job іѕ questioning аll thе significant witnesses, gathering аll possible facts аnd evidences bеѕіdеѕ asking questions durіng court trial periods. A Madison Branson lawyer саn settle thе case оut оf thе court bу negotiating wіth thе prosecutors аѕ wеll. Thrоugh negotiating wіth thе prosecutors оut оf thе court bу thе help оf a criminal defense attorney, thе illegal charges mау result іntо a reduced оnе wіth decreased penalties аnd a lesser period оf sentence.

Fort Carson commanders say they consistently remind returning soldiers that bad decisions are easy to make.

“There’s 14 months of testosterone built up,” said Capt. Tom Hanlon, a company commander in the 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, recently back from Ramadi, Iraq.

Troops in Iraq live in the most controlled of environments outside the prison system.
Except during combat — when soldiers must make splitsecond, life-or-death decisions — they have few choices to make. Everything from how they dress to what they eat to how they can spend their free time is decided by the Army, for a year or more.

“You might be able to draw a correlation between someone coming out of prison,” said Colorado Springs police Cmdr. Brian Grady. “We need to help them with re-entry and give them access to the services available in this community.”

Coming home hurt

The problems are more complex than a few GIs tearing up the bar district on Tejon Street in drunken exuberance.

The Army knows an increasing number of Fort Carson combat veterans are coming home with war-related mental illnesses and brain injuries that can change their behavior.

Fort Carson doctors diagnosed 615 soldiers in 2007 with post-traumatic stress disorder, up from 102 cases in 2003, when soldiers started returning from their first tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the fifth straight year with an increase in the number of soldiers being diagnosed with PTSD.

“You talk to some of these guys and you sense a lot of stress from the PTSD they bring home with them,” said Magistrate Robert Erler, who presides over the El Paso County Domestic Violence Fast Track court. He said there has clearly been an increase in cases of violence involving soldiers.

The Army is still trying to determine how many soldiers suffer brain-damaging concussions caused by insurgent bombs and what the behavioral symptoms might be.

“The war has forced us to realize and understand the parts of the brain that are impacted deals with emotions and impulse control,” McAteer said.

The public defender, who said she frequently sees soldiers with bomb-caused brain injuries, thinks there’s a link between the injuries and the crime.

“This is why we’re seeing more and more domestic violence, child abuse, homicides and drug cases,” she said.

Watching for signs

Every soldier at Fort Carson and hundreds of family members have been trained this year to spot signs of PTSD and brain injury. Every returning soldier is repeatedly screened for problems, and those who need help get it quickly, commanders say.

“The earlier you can find something, the easier it is to treat,” said Maj. Sean Ryan, the 2nd Brigade’s spokesman.

But the Army struggles with undiagnosed PTSD and brain-injury cases, some say, because it’s tough for soldiers to admit something is wrong.

“A lot of times they’re taught as officers and soldiers to be strong and stand firm,” said Colorado Springs police Lt. Fletcher Howard. “We as a society need to say to ourselves, ‘These people have been through a heck of a lot and need help processing what they’ve gone through.’”

Howard oversees a training program where officers learn how to deal with people who have PTSD issues, as well as other mental illnesses.
A professional actor comes to the classes and plays an Iraq veteran suffering PTSD.

“We teach our officers to use verbal judo to talk a person down, without them, or anyone else, getting hurt,” Howard said.

Most soldiers who are mentally ill or have brain damage remain law-abiding, Fort Carson and police officials said.
And even for mentally ill troops who break the law, there are no free passes.

“We can also see where that becomes a crutch, an excuse for them to act any way without being held responsible,” said Jensen, who heads the CSPD homicide unit that has investigated the recent killings in which soldiers are accused.

Hanlon said his focus is teaching his troops to transition from the day-to-day mentality of war to the long-term thoughts they can allow themselves only back home.

Too much of the trouble, from frivolous spending to drunkenness, comes from soldiers living only for the moment, he said. “I’m trying to convince them to be patient,” he said.

CRIMES LINKED TO CARSON VETERANS

Here are some notable criminal cases involving Iraq war veterans stationed at Fort Carson.

– Colorado Springs police allege two veterans from the same platoon are tied to a crime ring that could be responsible for the homicides of two soldiers. Spc. Kevin Shields was shot to death and his body was found Dec. 1. Pfc. Robert James was also shot to death. His body was found in a car parked in a Lake Avenue bank parking lot in August. The suspects are: Louis Bressler, 24, who was discharged and complained of suffering from PTSD; Pfc. Bruce Bastien Jr., 21; and soldier Kenneth Eastridge, who was an infantry rifleman. Authorities have charged or plan to charge all three with homicide, court records show.

– Former soldier Anthony Marquez, 23, admitted Thursday he shot and killed a 19-year-old Widefield resident and suspected drug dealer Oct. 22, 2006, during a robbery attempt. Marquez’s public defenders attempted to introduce PTSD as a possible defense, but dropped the effort when a judge ruled against them, court records show. According to the plea agreement, Marquez will spend 30 years in prison when he is sentenced in February.

– Pueblo police last month arrested Spc. Olin “Famous” Ferrier, 22, on suspicion of shooting taxi driver David Chance, 52, on Oct. 30. No charges have been filed.

– Former Pfc. Johnathon Klinker, 22, was sentenced to 40 years in prison in July for killing his 7-week-old daughter, Nicolette. Klinker blamed the baby’s October 2006 death, in part, on “war-related stress.”

– Former Pvt. Timothy Parker of the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, was convicted by court martial of manslaughter for beating Spc. Piotr Szczypka to death in a November 2005 fight at an apartment complex near the base. Both men had been drinking before Parker hit Szczypka with a fireplace poker, trial testimony showed. Parker was sentenced to seven years in a military prison.

– Nine days after 2nd Brigade Combat Team Pfc. Stephen S. Sherwood, 35, came home from Iraq in August 2005, he drove to Fort Collins and shot and killed his wife of seven years, Sara E. Sherwood, 30. The soldier, described by his commanders as a hero who fought bravely in Iraq, then turned the gun on himself and committed suicide.

December 22, 2007 – Look anywhere in Killeen, home to the sprawling Fort Hood army base, and there are patriotic signs like the giant banner that greets shoppers entering the local Wal-Mart: “Fort Hood Texas, Home of America’s Hammer!”

But beneath the bravado and bluster you find a more volatile mix of emotions – frustration, anxiety and anger – among military families after five years of war in Iraq.

As the presidential primaries get under way, disenchantment with the war here and elsewhere is having repercussions: A bloc of voters that has traditionally supported the Republican Party appears to be up for grabs.

“I’m definitely listening to who is saying what,” Belinda Larmore said as she sat in the Killeen Mall food court for lunch with her husband, Mike, an Army captain just back from a rotation in Iraq.

Ms. Larmore, 36, a mother of three, ages 5 to 19, grew up in a Republican family and has usually voted that way.

But in the 2008 national election, she is looking over the field carefully for a candidate – Democrat or Republican – who grasps the complex challenges facing a military stretched to the limit, fighting a war “with no end in sight.”

She wants to hear candidates address the issues directly affecting the military, such as multiple combat tours and rotations extended beyond the usual 12 months.

“Show me any politician who would be away from his family that long,” Ms. Larmore said as her husband sat silently across from her. Capt. Larmore declined to be interviewed but said he generally supported his wife’s views.

Ms. Larmore isn’t ready to support a quick exit from the war. “A lot of people are saying, ‘Let’s get out.’ But no one is coming up with a solution so that we can leave safely without leaving the people of Iraq high and dry.”

‘Military moms’ key

“Military moms” like Ms. Larmore and other women with relatives in the military are the swing vote in the nation’s first presidential primary in New Hampshire Jan. 8, said Jennifer Donahue, a senior political analyst with the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm University.

“They’re undecided and ambivalent. They have feelings of patriotism and wanting the war to be completed. But they’re getting reports home that the troops are very frustrated,” Ms. Donahue said.

“This bloc is very unsure as to what the right thing is for the troops. The question they face is whether to vote to limit [the war] or vote to let it play out.”

As a voting bloc, active-duty reservists and National Guard members number 2.6 million. About half are married – bringing the number of potential voters in this camp to nearly 4 million.

Now vs. then

A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll showed that a majority of military families disapproved of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq. That contrasts with polls and surveys taken before the 2004 presidential election, including one by Gallup, which found that veterans overwhelmingly favored Mr. Bush over his opponent, Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat and a war veteran.

The current Times/Bloomberg poll also found that nearly 70 percent of military households with a veteran of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan said that troops in Iraq should either come home right away or within the next year.

That’s how Maija Rojas feels.

A former Marine with a husband on his second tour in Iraq, Ms. Rojas, 25, says she’ll vote for the candidate “who can get them home the fastest.”

Multiple rotations and longer tours have caused problems and “a lot more divorces” among military families, said Ms. Rojas, a mother of two preschoolers.

Sheila Mengel’s husband retired after 23 years in the Army, including one tour in Iraq. If the election were held right now, “I’d vote Democrat because I’d like to see the war end,” she said.

Ms. Mengel said that Iraq is in a civil war, and that U.S. troops have no business providing security over there. “If the Iraqis want to kill each other, they should handle it themselves.”

Others remained supportive of Mr. Bush and his strategy in Iraq.

Sarah Martin, another military spouse, said she wants to “see it through” in Iraq. “I definitely will vote Republican.”

Vera Kingsley, a former Marine who served in Iraq in 2004, said the United States can’t “leave a country in shambles. The reason we’re there is to help them get back on their feet.”

Possible signs of shift

Which candidate is best situated to capture the military vote?

If you follow the money, campaign contributions to Democrats have risen sharply since the start of the Iraq war in 2003.

The Democrats’ share of military contributions has increased from 23 percent during the 2002 election to 40 percent so far this year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The top recipients in the presidential race – Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul – are both anti-war candidates.

Among Republican candidates for president, only Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman, opposes the war. Of the top three Democratic candidates, Mr. Obama and John Edwards would pull combat troops out of Iraq within 12 months. Hillary Rodham Clinton would withdraw troops but has no set timeline for a full pullout.

A survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, released Dec. 4, found that in the key Republican primary state of South Carolina, military veterans and their spouses do not differ much in vote choice from those with no military experience.Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war John McCain actually did slightly better among nonveterans than veterans.

Ms. Donahue, the political analyst in New Hampshire, said that no candidate has clearly emerged as the favorite of veterans and active-duty military in either party.

“There are clearly signs of discontent. But does that shift voting patterns?” said James Henson, who directs the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin.

Organizing voters

Signs of discontent are showing up on Internet blogs and with organizations such as VoteVets .org, which supports veterans running for office, and Veterans Against the Iraq War, which has sponsored anti-war demonstrations around the country.

Texas-based Military Spouses for Change was started in May by Carissa Picard, the wife of a Black Hawk pilot based at Fort Hood.

Military spouses tend to shy away from politics, Ms. Picard said. Her group wants to change that by educating voters and highlighting related causes such as wounded-warrior legislation and veterans benefits.

Ms. Picard, who was a practicing lawyer before deciding to stay home with her two young children, said the Iraq war was the impetus for starting Military Spouses for Change.

“What I wanted to do was provide for our spouses a place to go to look at each candidate’s plans for Iraq,” she said.

The group, which started with eight spouses at Fort Hood, now has 200 members scattered across the country and elsewhere.

The group isn’t endorsing any candidate. But in her conversations in the military community, Ms. Picard has found that frustration with the war has created an opening for Democrats.

“A lot of people I’ve been talking to in the active-duty and veteran community, who have traditionally voted Republican, are considering Democratic candidates because they’re very frustrated with the war in Iraq.”

Clint Douglas, a former staff sergeant who fought in Afghanistan, said he identifies as a Democrat and sees an opportunity for the party to pick up disenchanted military voters.

“So many military people, families, dependents are sick of this presidency and the wars,” he said.

But he thinks the Democrats’ perceived weakness on defense issues continues to hurt them among this bloc of voters.

“Why can’t Democrats do defense?” said Mr. Douglas, who lives in Chicago and is writing a book about his wartime experience.

University of Texas professor John Sibley Butler, a Vietnam veteran, agrees that Democrats aren’t as hawkish on defense issues as Republicans, although he is disappointed that few politicians in either party have military experience.

Perhaps no one knows the predicament facing military families better than Leslae Stewart, who lives in Killeen.

A soldier for eight years before leaving in 2003, Ms. Stewart said her son is getting ready to enlist in the Army and may soon be heading to Iraq.

“I’m tired of this war – enough is enough,” she said. But she also supports her son. “It’s what he wants to do.”

LEADING CANDIDATES’ VIEWS ON IRAQ

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Favors starting a troop withdrawal but leaving some to fight terrorists, train Iraqi forces and protect U.S. interests. Wants to increase regional diplomacy. Has set no timeline for a full withdrawal.

John Edwards:  Favors withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops immediately, and all within 10 months of taking office. Would prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and keep quick-reaction forces outside Iraq.

Barack Obama:  Vows to end the war. Would withdraw combat troops by the end of 2008 but leave some troops to protect the U.S. Embassy and attack specific targets.

REPUBLICANS

Rudy Giuliani:  Supports President Bush’s troop surge. Says U.S. forces must remain until Iraq is stable. Calls for expanding the U.S. Army by at least 10 combat brigades, or 35,000 soldiers.

Mike Huckabee:  Opposes withdrawal timetables. Says he’s “focused on winning.” Backs a regional summit.

John McCain:  Supports the troop surge. Wants troops to stay until Iraq’s government is stable and secure.

Mitt Romney:  Would bring U.S. troops home as soon as possible, but not in a precipitous way that might require them to go back.

Fred Thompson:  Wants to maintain the U.S. mission in Iraq as central to the war against Islamic terrorism; would greatly expand the military.

SOURCES: The Associated Press; McClatchy-Tribune

If the end result of the investigation into Private First Class Jason Scheuerman’s suicide is that one NCO loses a rocker or two and another loses his stripes, you’ll know it’s a whitewash and you’ll know what to expect: more of the same. This case should make the Inspector General see stars.  [Read about the tragic incident here: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/8993.]

Scheuerman, who killed himself in Iraq in 2005, was exhibiting suicidal and depressive behavior four months before his death. He was reported. He was interviewed. He was referred to a psychologist. He was evaluated. He was threatened, and punished, and threatened and punished again. And so, fearful of being raped in the stockade and viewing himself as a screw-up who had brought “dishonor” on his unit, he stepped into a closet and shot himself. He was 20.

A plausible argument can be made that anyone who sees a soldier with the muzzle of his weapon in his mouth and doesn’t act is too ignorant to be in the Army. But, in general, soldiers aren’t expected to be experts in mental instability — although they can be taught much more than most now know, including every line of the Army’s list of suicide risk factors.

A chaplain deserves credit for both his concern and his persistence. And give a nod to Scheuerman’s platoon sergeant, who recommended professional help — as did his company commander, under prodding from the soldier’s mother, who received what she took to be a suicide message. But: The result of the visit with the psychologist (not, it seems clear, a psychiatrist, an M.D.) was a test which established, to the psychologist’s satisfaction, that Scheuerman was “capable” of feigning mental illness. That isn’t what anyone needed to know. What the higher-ups needed to know was whether or not he was capable of self-murder. Instead, the report served to peg him as a fake, a phony and a malingerer.

Outside the operating room, the armed forces are not famous for their attention to individuals. To an extent, that’s unavoidable. But the mental health division belongs in the same category as the surgeons. Yet, for years, its leadership — the brass — has parried questions about patient care with laments about manpower needs.

Chris Scheuerman of Sanford, himself an Army veteran, brought to light this much of the story of his son’s death and then asked Congressman Bob Etheridge of Lillington to call in the Inspector General. Give Mr. Scheuerman the final word: “We will not see a statistical decrease in Army suicides until the Army gets serious about holding people accountable when they do not do what they are trained to do.”

December 20, 2007 – The song “Famous Last Words,” was supposed to be his swan song. In 1993, after 14 platinum-selling albums, Billy Joel claimed he had nothing left to say.

Fourteen years later, this is perhaps the Piano Man’s most provocative statement yet.

It’s called “Christmas in Fallujah,” and is sung by 21-year-old newcomer Cass Dillion. It’s a blunt and mostly bleak, song about the plight of U.S. troops in Iraq.

“We came with the crusaders to save the holy land. It’s Christmas in Fallujah. And no one gives a damn,” he sings.

Joel told CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric: “The events over there seem to have slipped from the headlines because of what’s happening with the surge, but you know, what they conveyed to me was, “well tell that to the guys on the front lines. We’re still there.”

Joel says the song was inspired by letters he’s gotten from soldiers overseas.

“I think a lot of people who are there feel detached from the home front, that people may not care or people have forgotten about them,” he said.

Noticably absent are the two instruments the 58-year-old Rock and Roll Hall of Famer is most famous for — his piano and his voice.

“When I wrote this song, and I heard a 58 year-old man singing it, in my voice, I said, ‘that doesn’t sound right to me. I think it should be somebody of that age, the age of a soldier or a Marine,'” he said.

Joel had heard the music of Dillon, a fellow Long Islander, and was impressed. So, backed by Joel’s band, Dillon recorded “Christmas in Fallujah” on Veterans Day.

Was that intentional?

“Completely coincidental,” Dillon said. “Divine intervention.”

But not everyone agrees the Karma’s good. Joel’s lamenting lyrics have some calling it an anti-war rant. And a Pentagon Channel holiday segment about the song was pulled.

“Is it an anti-war song?” Couric asked.

“I’m not going to say if it’s anti-war song or not,” Joel said. “I hate it when a celebrity gets up on a soapbox and tells people how to think and how to vote. And what their opinion is. I hate that. I find it insulting. What I think isn’t important. What they think is important, because they’re risking their lives.”

Ten-year Army veteran Rick Bradley hosts an Internet radio show for military families and has a son serving in Iraq.

He says most of his listeners think “Christmas in Fallujah” hits home.

“It’s an awesome, awesome song,” said one military mom. “It definitely touches base.”

“They’re really proud of Billy Joel because it was written from their eyes,” Bradley said. “I think it’s his thank you to the soldiers.”

And when we played the song for Sgt. Greg Papadatos of the 69th Infantry, back from Iraq and about to deploy to Afghanistan, he said he’d like to thank Joel.

“He’s reminding people we have soldiers. They are at war. They are far from home,” he said. “Yeah, thanks for remembering.”

December 20, 2007 – There’s a war inside the military over how to treat a not-so-new enemy: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

“I’ve never had a guy in my unit develop PTSD,” one senior general from Iraq told me. ‘It’s nonsense.”

“You’re only scratching the surface,” of cases from this war, another senior general told me. “Keep looking.”

Simply put, PTSD is what happens when you put a combatant in the pressure cooker of Iraq or Afghanistan, and tell him or her, “No matter what you see or feel, tough it out. Lock it down. Keep it to yourself.” After multiple tours living on high boil, with no relief valve, some U.S. troops are breaking. Make that thousands.

The largest military employer, the U.S. Army, has rolled out new programs to teach troops what PTSD is, to try to reduce the stigma. It can be as simple as asking a patrol that saw something traumatic to talk about it out loud. That way, the incident on the battlefield gets tamed by a jawing session with your buddies, instead of becoming a nightmare that wakes you sweating at 4 a.m. with visions of the dead and maimed that won’t leave you.

They also teach the troops what to watch for, as PTSD can show up as a host of different symptoms. People withdraw from their loved ones and become antisocial; or maybe go to the other extreme of promiscuity; or hide in drugs or alcohol; or fly into violent rage.

But more “traditional” military commanders believe PTSD is just a catchall excuse for someone who is too weak or too cowardly to serve.

They label them “malingering” trouble-makers, who need to shape up, or get out, lest they get someone killed on their next combat tour.

Veteran activists believe that attitude is responsible for an epidemic number of expulsions from the military. Some 22,500 troops have been kicked out since the start of the Iraq war for “pre-existing personality disorder” a psychological problem the military said the troops came in with, which allegedly surfaced in the heat of battle. That’s up 40 percent since 2003. Another 5,500 were expelled for ‘misconduct’ like drug abuse — up twenty percent from 2003.

These diagnoses get the soldier off the battlefield faster than a medical discharge for PTSD, which can take months, according to writer Joshua Kors who conducted a year-long investigation of the issue for The Nation. “By discharging them with a personality disorder, not only do they prevent them from collecting disability or medical benefits for the rest of their lives, but they also get them out the door in just a few days.”

To add insult to injury, had to then pay back part of their sign-on bonuses, because they weren’t able to complete their military service.

Kimberly Dozier is a CBS News correspondent based in Washington.

December 20, 2007 – DALLAS – The Army says in 2006 soldiers committed suicide at the highest rate in nearly three decades. However, at 109 deaths so far, this year has been even worse.

While the military is taking action and trying to slow the disturbing trend, the answers aren’t easy, particularly for grieving parents.

In the case of Spc. Aaron Latimer, of Ennis, the signs were there.

“We could tell he was really depressed,” said Richard Latimer, Aaron’s father.

During his tour in Iraq, Latimer was suicidal. In fact, Army records show his unit took his weapon away and had soldiers escort him wherever he went for fear that he would take his life.

But on May 9, 2006, just days after his commanders returned his weapon, Latimer put the Army-issued rifle into his mouth and pulled the trigger.

“It’s almost like he talked them back into giving it back to him so he could end it,” Mr. Latimer said.

Latimer’s battle with inner turmoil is not unique. A record number of soldiers have taken their own lives this year.

“We see a lot of depression, a lot of anxiety,” said Catherine Orsak, Dallas VA Medical Center.

While suicide rates are lower than the national rate at the Dallas VA Medical Center, longer deployments and the horrors of combat keep mental health officials busy.

“More people are asking for counseling,” Orsak said. “More people are asking for more specific services we provide, and our workload has shown that increase.”

Orsak said her office has increased its staff by nearly 20 percent to handle the workload, which is part of the military’s recent aggressive efforts to halt suicides.

But the efforts are little consolation to parents like the Latimers.

“They think about killing people and breaking things,” Mr. Latimer said. “Sometimes, they don’t think about the welfare of their own troops.”

Mr. Latimer said questions of what lies behind the suicidal thoughts still haunt him.

“I probably will have to go see him on the other side to find out,” he said. “I don’t think I’m going to understand that in this lifetime.”

December 21, 2007 – When Larry Shellito returned from Vietnam back to Moorhead, Minn., the only people to greet him were members of his immediate family. Friends weren’t sure how to react. Some ignored the fact that he had just been through the most traumatic experience of his life. Others were “cool, distant, almost disrespectful” about his service.

“You quickly learned not to talk about it or tell them where you’ve been,” he said.

Shellito, now the adjutant general of the Minnesota National Guard, wants to make sure Iraq war veterans have a very different experience. He realized something needed to be done when he saw one of the earliest-deployed soldiers returning from Iraq, seemingly desensitized and ambivalent about the destruction he’d witnessed.

“I said, ‘OK. He’s got that look,'” Shellito said. “And that’s what it was, it was a look.

“I said to myself, ‘It’s happening all over. It’s happening again. The Vietnam era had that look.'”

While he was encouraged as a Vietnam veteran to repress and stay silent, Shellito wants his troops to talk out what the war has done to them and get them the help they need.

The result has been Beyond the Yellow Ribbon, a groundbreaking program to reintegrate deployed Minnesota National Guard members into civilian life.

Two years after its creation, the program has become so successful that Congress voted last week to take it nationwide.

Beyond the Yellow Ribbon rewrote the rules that shielded returning vets from any mandatory activity for their first few months back home.

The program reassembles military units at 30-, 60- and 90-day intervals for intensive seminars on marriage, parenting, employment, benefits and even help coping with possible substance abuse and anger management.

In early 2005, Shellito hired John Morris as a chaplain, and together they brainstormed over what help returning soldiers would need. Morris had just returned from fighting in Fallujah, and knew from personal experience how tough the re-entry to civilian life could be. “When you deploy, either your family sinks or it swims,” said Morris, the father of three girls. “Most families swim, which means they literally learn to live without you. If they’ve learned to live without you, in reality it means they don’t need you. How do you find your way to a new role and new responsibility with no training?”

Morris and Shellito developed a series of workshops that could head off problems before they disrupted lives.

Sgt. Jeremy Wilson, 26, is one of 2,600 soldiers from the “Red Bull” 1st Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division, which served nearly two years in Iraq. He has been through all three of the reintegration programs since returning in July, and said hearing Morris speak was one of the most helpful parts of the program.

“(He) spoke to us and our families about the things he had gone through that others of us were seeing, basically readjustment things,” he said. “He let us know it doesn’t feel normal but it is the normal part of reintegration.”

The program also reaches out to soldiers’ family members and community leaders to involve them in the process, Shellito said.

“We went out to communities and did awareness programs with key businesses,” he said. “We had meetings with clergy, law enforcement, civics groups … It really energized the communities.”

Shellito said his ability to organize and manage a large-scale project such as this was nurtured by the years he spent at Alexandria Technical College, first as an instructor and then as its president for nine years before Gov. Tim Pawlenty named him adjutant general in 2003.

Kevin Kopischke, his successor as college president, said that for as long as he’s known him, Shellito’s passion has been with the Guard.

“He was just committed totally to making sure he could do everything he could possibly do to help with this transition so people could live a normal life,” Kopischke said.

That dedication merged with his enthusiasm for education this year when he discovered that half of the soldiers in the Red Bull unit were being denied expanded veterans education benefits because of a fluke in their paperwork. Long hours with Minnesota’s congressional delegation and the Department of Defense ultimately rectified the situation, said U.S. Rep. John Kline, a Republican.

“He has been forward-leaning, forward-thinking and very innovative to step up and solve these problems,” said Kline, who authored the House version of the bill to nationalize the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program.

From all accounts, the program is working. Shellito said he has received “Christmas cards like crazy” from soldiers’ parents and spouses to express their appreciation for the program.

“On my way home the other night, in uniform, I stopped in Rainbow Food and I had four different people at four different times stop me to say thank you,” Shellito said. “You never, never, never got that in the Vietnam era.”

December 21, 2007 – We speak with a reporter from the Army Times who gives an inside account of how an army unit committed mutiny and refused to carry out orders in Iraq. After an IED attack killed five more members of Charlie 1-26, members of 2nd Platoon gathered for a meeting and determined they could no longer function professionally. Several platoon members were afraid their anger could set loose a massacre.

Guest:

Kelly Kennedy, medical reporter for Army Times. She is the author of the new four-part series Blood Brothers.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In what has been described as one of the most remarkable stories of the entire Iraq war, a reporter from the Army Times has given perhaps the first inside account of how an Army unit committed mutiny and refused to carry out orders in Iraq.

The incident occurred in Adhamiya, a district in northeastern Baghdad, where soldiers in the 2nd Platoon, Charlie Company, were stationed. The 2nd Platoon had lost many men since deploying to Iraq eleven months before. After an IED attack killed five more members of Charlie 1-26, members of 2nd Platoon gathered for a meeting and determined they could no longer function professionally. Several platoon members were afraid their anger could set loose a massacre. They decided to stage a revolt against their commanders that they viewed as a life-or-death act of defiance.

AMY GOODMAN: The story appears in a major four-part series called “Blood Brothers,” published in the Army Times by the paper’s medical reporter, Kelly Kennedy. She was embedded with Charlie Company in Iraq in the spring and summer of this year. Kelly Kennedy joins us now from Washington, D.C.

Welcome, Kelly, to Democracy Now! Just lay out the story for us. How did it begin?

KELLY KENNEDY: Well, it began—I went to Adhamiya. I was working on a story about medics, and I had heard that Charlie Company had been hit particularly hard, and so I wanted to ride along with their medics and see what they were doing. They were doing some amazing things: tracheotomies on the battlefield and restarting hearts and just really great things.

Our second day there, my photographer, Rick Kozak, and I had gone out on patrol with them in the morning, and then they went out on a second patrol that we didn’t go on, and that was the day that the Bradley was hit, and they lost five men. So we watched them react to that. I guess what amazed me about that day was how strong these guys were for each other, but also how they were willing to look out for us, as reporters that they had just met. They flew us out of there that night.

And then, about a month later, I got a couple of emails from the guys saying, “We just lost four more men, and they want us to go out on patrol, and we’re not going to do it.” And then, I couldn’t get back to them when I was in Iraq, but when they returned home to Germany, I went to see them.

And essentially, they’re the hardest hit unit in Iraq so far. I hope that the story would show people exactly what soldiers in Iraq are dealing with. I’m not sure Americans understand exactly what this war looks like to our soldiers. And we just went through the whole fifteen-month deployment in a four-part series, just showing exactly what had happened to them, from the youngest man in their unit throwing himself on a grenade to save four other men to battles that they went through. They were catching insurgents, and they were battling every day, but then they were exhausted, too, mentally and physically.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And in terms of the casualties, you have some startling numbers, in terms of the percentage of the men who were killed. Could you talk about that?

KELLY KENNEDY: Yeah. The company itself, there were 110 men who went out on patrol—there were probably 138 men in Charlie Company itself—and they lost fourteen men in twelve months. And the battalion, which is about a thousand people, lost thirty-one people altogether. So it’s pretty extreme.

AMY GOODMAN: You talk about right when you got there, the five men being killed by an IED. Tell us about Master Sergeant Jeffrey McKinney.

KELLY KENNEDY: OK, that was about a month later. First Sergeant McKinney was well loved by his men. He was Bravo Company. He was considered intelligent. When they had a question, he was the one they went to, because he could explain things. Everyone thought he was a great family man. One of the soldiers, Ian Nealon [phon.], told me that he used to ride to work with him every day and that he just loved him.

And one day, he went out on patrol with his guys, and they had just been called back into Apache, which was the name of the combat outpost where they were in Adhamiya, and he apparently looked—said that he had had it. He looked at a wall, he fired a round, and then he took his M4, and he put it under his chin, and he killed himself in front of his men. It left a lot of people just saddened and horrified. And then, the next week, Bravo Company was hit by an IED, and they lost four guys, too.

AMY GOODMAN: The military first ruled it an accident, then admitted that it was a suicide.

KELLY KENNEDY: Well, I’m not sure they—they did an investigation. I don’t think they admit anything until they’re done with an investigation in the military. But, yeah, I think that they were worried about morale at first, and so when they called the guys back in, it wasn’t—they didn’t announce that their first sergeant had just killed himself; they said, “There’s been an accident.” So—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Your series presents a really fascinating picture of how the medical folks who dealt with some of these soldiers, the psychologists who dealt with them, reacted to their situation, and also how the commander dealt with being faced with an actual mutiny by his troops. Could you enlighten us about that some more?

KELLY KENNEDY: Yeah, I think there’s—that’s one of the key differences of this war. I’m a veteran myself, and I served in Mogadishu, and I served in Desert Storm. We didn’t know what PTSD was—post-traumatic stress disorder. We didn’t have mental health people we could go to while we were out in the field or while we were out in battle. We didn’t talk about ethics. We didn’t talk about how we were feeling or how we would react professionally to certain situations. And these guys are. They’re going to mental health, and they’re saying, “Hey, I’m upset about this.” And the mental health people are talking with the unit commanders and saying, “Hey, maybe you need to pull your guys out Adhamiya,” or “Hey, maybe your guys need some more rest.” And they’re certainly saying, “Listen, if you think you’re going to act unprofessionally, you need to do something else. You need to take care of that.” And I think that’s huge. I don’t think a lot of people understand that that’s a big difference in this war, between the last war and this war.

And the reason they do that is because early on in this war we did have situations where troops did not behave properly. In Vietnam, we certainly saw it. For these guys to stand up and say, “Listen, we’re not sure we can handle it right now,” could be considered very courageous, in my mind. The commander, I think, also realized that, and he said as much, that he sees the two sides of the situation.

After Bravo Company’s IED went off, Charlie Company was supposed to go back out and patrol the same area. When some of the members who had been patrolling with Charlie Company before the scout platoon went as the quick reaction force to the IED attack for Bravo Company, they were struck by how much it looked like the first IED attack that—the roadside bomb attack, and they reacted as if it were their own men, and they went right to mental health and they got sleeping medications, and they basically couldn’t sleep and reacted poorly.

And then, they were supposed to go out on patrol again that day. And they, as a platoon, the whole platoon—it was about forty people—said, “We’re not going to do it. We can’t. We’re not mentally there right now.” And for whatever reason, that information didn’t make it up to the company commander. All he heard was, “2nd Platoon refuses to go.” So he insisted that they come. They still refused. So volunteers went out to talk with them, and then he got the whole situation. In the meantime, it was called a mutiny, which is probably a bigger word than should be used for it, but that’s what the battalion called it.

And eventually, what they did was they separated the platoon. They said, you know, “You guys aren’t acting well together anymore, so we’re going to split you up, and we’re going to have you work with other platoon sergeants, other squad leaders, and see if we can turn things around this way.” But they also punished them, in a sense, by flagging them and saying that they couldn’t get promotions and they couldn’t get their awards for two months. So there was a feeling that there had to be punishment for these soldiers refusing to go on a mission, but there was also understanding that the guys may have acted properly in this case.

AMY GOODMAN: Kelly Kennedy, I think what is so profound about this story is the refusal of the men to go out. Were there women, by the way, in this unit?

KELLY KENNEDY: No, it was all infantry.

AMY GOODMAN: The refusal of these men to go out, because they were afraid they would commit a massacre. Explain that.

KELLY KENNEDY: Yeah. They’re—I need to say this: they are good guys. I mean, I saw them take care of each other. I saw them take care of Iraqis.

When the IED, the roadside bomb, went off, it was so close to one of the Iraqi police stations that they should have been able to see somebody burying that. It was right in front of somebody’s house, and nobody said anything. Nobody said to these guys, “Listen, there’s a bomb here. We’re worried about you,” even though they had been going out and patrolling and doing what they were supposed to be doing, in their minds. So when that IED went off and killed their five friends, they’re in—you have to understand, they’ve been living together for a year like brothers in the basement of this old palace. And it’s—they’re right on top of each other and going out and taking care of each other on the battlefield, daily firefights. And so, they’re closer probably than anyone could be. And when they lost their five men, they—I think they gave up on the Iraqi people.

If the Iraqi people weren’t willing to fight for them, then what was the point? And they were so angry. They just wanted to go out and take out the whole city. They didn’t understand why they couldn’t finish up what they call the war, and the whole idea of counterinsurgency is that you’re supposed to be building relationships, but they’re trying to build relationships with people who obviously aren’t that concerned about them. So this idea of a massacre was just—they were just so angry, they could barely contain it anymore.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And that sense that you capture so well in the article, the soldiers finding that they’re on a mission to help a people, but they have so much hostility from the very people that they are there to help, the impact of that on their fighting ability or on the morale.

KELLY KENNEDY: It was huge. And I think they can see it from both perspectives. We went out on patrol one morning. It was 6:00 in the morning, and they had to go in and search houses. And they were waking people up, and the Iraqis didn’t look happy to see them, and the guys weren’t happy to have to wake people up. And so, they’re sort of weary of each other anyway.

They were still doing the things that you see, handing out the teddy bears and playing with the kids and playing soccer and that sort of thing, but at the same time, they never felt safe. I mean, it was daily that they were catching grenades and live fire, and these IEDs were all over the place. They just never felt like they were getting anywhere.

When they thought that they had built a relationship with a Sunni colonel, the colonel was fired because the Baghdad government is Shiite, and they didn’t trust him as a colonel in the Iraqi army. So, as soon as he was gone, they had to start all over again. It just seemed like every time they made progress, it was slammed back down again. They just weren’t getting anywhere

AMY GOODMAN: Kelly Kennedy, I want to thank you for joining us and for doing this series of pieces, the medical reporter for Army Times. She’s the author of a four-part series, “Blood Brothers.” We’ll link to it at our website, democracynow.org.

December 21, 2007, Portsmouth, New Hampshire — The evidence for impeachment of the president and vice president is overwhelming, former CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern told a room full of people at the Portsmouth Public Library Monday night.

McGovern, who provided daily briefings for former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as well as other high ranking officials during his 27 year CIA career, said he has witnessed a “prostitution of his profession” as the Bush administration lied to the American people about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

“Don’t let anyone tell you the President was deceived by false intelligence … they knew,” McGovern said.

For the next 40 minutes, he relayed a series of events leading up to 9/11 which illustrate the President’s desire to go to war with Iraq well before 9-11, that reliable CIA evidence showed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was presented to the administration and the “facts were fixed” in order to legitimize the invasion.

“The estimate which said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was prepared to the terms of reference laid down by Dick Cheney in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002. It was the worst estimate of intelligence and came to the wrong conclusions, but it was designed to do that,” McGovern said.

McGovern has been an outspoken commentator on intelligence-related issues since the late 1990s and since 2002 has been publicly critical of Bush’s use of government intelligence in the lead-up to the war.

The recent report detailing Iran’s stopping its nuclear weapons program four years ago, is an example of how the administration knows it can no longer hide such “incontrovertible evidence” from the American people in the fallout from the misinformation they received on the Iraq War, McGovern said. He added that he had almost given up on believing their were people still working at the top with a conscious and enough people at the top willing to let analysts do their job and accept independent analysis.

In late 2005, Congress requested an estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities.

“My former colleagues got really good, incontrovertible evidence that the program, such as it was, has been ordered stopped since 2003. The evidence was such that not even Dick Cheney could deny it. That’s why the report was not produced until three weeks ago,” McGovern said, adding that the Bush administration has been putting “spin” on their rhetoric ever since.

McGovern also addressed the reasoning he believes is behind the threat of war with Iran. He said he believes Israel thinks they have a pledge from the White House to deal with Iran before Bush leaves office and relayed the story of the U.S.S. Liberty, which was attacked by the Israelis in 1967 and covered up by the United States. Thirty-four U.S soldiers were killed and about 170 were seriously injured.

“It seems to me, that on June, 8, 1967, Israel realized it could literally get away with murder,” McGovern said.

McGovern said he also believes Congress will be of little help. Recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted to learning about torture and illegal eavesdropping in briefings, but said it was her understanding when briefed, that she will not share the information with anyone else, including other members of the House Intelligence Committee.

McGovern called Pelosi out on violating her oath to uphold the Constitution “against enemies, foreign or domestic” by allowing acts in violation of the Constitution to continue by not saying “diddly.”

He added that although an impeachment bill currently in Congress is gaining more support, Democrats are shying away because of the influence of lobbies and political analysts telling them to “wait it out” until the election.

Charges in the impeachment bill sponsored by Dennis Kucinich, are very detailed and “as good as any,” McGovern said, and referenced the illegal eavesdropping of American citizens. He added that the President has “admitted” to this “demonstrably impeachable offense.”

“The argument for impeachment is overwhelming,” Randy Kezar of Kingston said after the event. “Impeachment is constitutionally required.”

McGovern’s visit was co-sponsored by NH Codepink, Seacoast Peace Response, NH Peace Action, NH American Friends Service Committee, Seacoast 9-11 Questions Group, NH Veterans for Peace and Witness for Peace-N.E.

December 18, 2007 – More than 250 people once held in Iraqi prisons, including the notorious Abu Ghraib, have filed suit against a US military contractor for their alleged torture, attorneys said Tuesday.

The Center for Constitutional Rights said a lawsuit was filed in US federal court on Monday asking for millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against CACI International Inc. of Arlington, Virginia.

The complaint, filed in the name 256 former detainees who were released without ever being charged with a crime, alleges that CACI interrogators who were sent to Iraqi prisons directed and engaged in torture between 2003-2004.

The lawsuit charges that the detainees were repeatedly beaten, sodomized, threatened with rape, kept naked in their cells, subjected to electric shock and attacked by unmuzzled dogs, among other humiliations.

The court action also names two CACI employees — Stephen Stefanowski, knowns as Big Steve, and Daniel Johnson, known as DJ — accusing them of participating in the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

The two contractors allegedly directed corporal Charles Graner, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for this role in the Abu Ghraib scandal, and sergeant Ivan Frederick, who is serving an eight-year jail term, according to the lawsuit.

“These corporate guys worked in a conspiracy with those military guys to torture people,” Susan Burke, the lead attorney in the case, told AFP.

“And now the military have been held accountable, but the company guys and the company have not been,” she said.

The complaint is the latest against CACI, which has faced lawsuits since 2004. A previous class-action lawsuit was rejected by a court.