Student to Testify In Front of U.S. Congressional Committee

December 10, 2007 – NIU journalism major Ilona Meagher will testify Wednesday in front of a U.S. congressional committee.

The hearing will discuss health care options for veterans and the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. within the veteran committee, a topic Meagher has become a recognized expert on.  Meagher’s book on the topic, “Moving a Nation to Care: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and America’s Returning Troops,” was published in May 2007.

“I never would have even dreamed that I’d be asked to testify,” Meagher said.
The hearing will specifically discuss the recent studies released over the past couple months.

The first, a study by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, shows that one in four homeless adults are U.S. veterans.

The second, a CBS News report, determined that the suicide rate among veterans is double that of the general public.

“I’m just hoping to do very well for everybody, as I’ve had a lot people help me along the way,” she said. “It’s really an honor to represent regular American citizens and to represent a part of people doing some great work.”

Meagher is also helping to shape the hearing agenda at the request of Committee Chairman Bob Filner (D-CA).

“It’s a very humbling experience,” Meagher said in an NIU press release. “I see myself representing other concerned Americans who, after hearing of the reintegration difficulties of some of our returning troops and veterans, may find themselves saying, ‘We can do better by them.’”

Meagher, a 41-year-old former flight attendant, began collecting media reports of combat-related PTSD incidents in 2005 after viewing a news account of veterans of Iraq who had committed suicide.

“Being called to testify is the grand culmination of two years of steady work on this issue for me,” Meagher said in the release. “To have the chance to advocate for our military families and perhaps move the issues that are important to them forward is a great return on the time I’ve invested.”

Editor’s Note: Ilona Meagher also contributes to the Northern Star as a columnist.

Ilona Meagher has an online blog tracking her research of PTSD. To learn more, visit ptsdcombat.blogspot.com.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Student to Testify In Front of U.S. Congressional Committee

US Marine Guilty of Iraq Killing

December 14, 2007 – A US marine has been found guilty of killing an Iraqi soldier while they were on night-time patrol in Falluja.

Lance Corporal Delano Holmes was convicted of negligent homicide, but was found not guilty of a more serious charge of unpremeditated murder.

Holmes told a military court in San Diego he stabbed the Iraqi private in a fight after suspecting he might be signalling to an insurgent sniper.

He now faces up to eight years in prison and a dishonourable discharge.

Holmes told the court he had had fought with Private Munther Jasem Muhammed Hassin while they had been on night-time sentry duty in Falluja.

He said he suspected that the Iraqi was signalling to insurgents with a lit cigarette and a mobile phone.

He told investigators that during the fight Pte Hassin reached for his AK-47 after refusing to put down the cigarette and phone.

Prosecutors accused Holmes of repeatedly stabbing the Iraqi solder with his bayonet. They said Pte Hassin was an ally of the United States, and there was no evidence he was anything but “a peaceful guy”.

Holmes’s defence lawyer told jurors the actions of the marine were “a perfectly reasonable application and escalation of force”.

A post-mortem examination found that Pte Hassin had 17 stab wounds, 26 cuts and a gash that nearly severed his nose.

Holmes was also found guilty of lying to his superiors about the incident.

The five-day trial focused on the politically sensitive issue of how US marines interact with the Iraqi security forces.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on US Marine Guilty of Iraq Killing

Mandate Would Check Marines for Stress, Injury

December 14, 2007 – Marine commanders would be required to intervene in cases in which combat-hardened Marines with clean records have gotten into trouble after suffering combat stress, under a proposed order.

The directive, which has not yet been signed by Marine Corps Commandant James Conway, would require medical officers to screen for combat stress or traumatic brain injury (TBI) all Marines who engage in uncharacteristic misconduct after returning from combat.

The misconduct could include drug use, unauthorized absences or disrespectful conduct and could result in a dismissal from service and the denial of Department of Veterans Affairs services.

“Post-deployment misconduct, especially in a Marine who previously served honorably, must be considered a possible indicator of an undiagnosed stress injury or a mild traumatic brain injury that, if confirmed, deserves immediate and comprehensive treatment,” the order says.

The order is under review and has no release date, said Navy Capt. William Nash, who coordinates the Marines’ combat-stress program.

At least one-third of 1,019 combat-veteran Marines who received less-than-honorable discharges for misconduct showed evidence of mental health problems, according to Marine Corps research Nash disclosed in June.

USA TODAY reported last year that veterans with less-than-honorable discharges are usually denied VA health care benefits.

Nash said in June the Marine Corps lacked enough mental health caregivers to screen troops where misconduct occurred. The draft order appears to address that problem by allowing the preliminary examinations to be carried out by unit medical officers.

It “may not be justice” to strip a Marine of benefits after a dismissal linked to combat stress, Nash said.

The order does not absolve Marines of responsibility for their actions, even if they are the result of stress or brain damage.

However, the order says, “immediate screening for these conditions is also essential. Early treatment and screening when indicated without delay for legal proceedings gives the Marine the greatest chance of recovery.”

The Marine proposal will “put physical and psychological injuries on the table when acts of misconduct are being considered,” says Shelley MacDermid, a Purdue University professor who chaired a task force that highlighted the problem of combat stress-related misconduct in June.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Mandate Would Check Marines for Stress, Injury

Data Sought on Veterans’ Suicide

December 13, 2007 – The parents of an Iraq war veteran who committed suicide and members of Congress on Wednesday questioned why there’s not a comprehensive tracking system of suicide among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

Mike Bowman, of Forreston, Ill., said his son, Spc. Timothy Bowman, 23, is a member of the “unknown fallen” not counted in statistics. His son, a member of the Illinois National Guard, took his own life in 2005 eight months after returning from war. Bowman said he considers his son a “KBA” — killed because of action.

“If the veteran suicide rate is not classified as an epidemic that needs immediate and drastic attention, then the American fighting soldier needs someone in Washington who thinks it is,” Bowman said.

Bowman was one of several witnesses who testified before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee on the issue.

Rep. Bob Filner, the committee chairman, questioned why the comprehensive tracking wasn’t already being done.

“They don’t want to know this, it looks to me,” said Filner, D-Calif. “This could be tracked.”

Dr. Ira Katz, the VA’s deputy chief patient care service officer for mental health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, defended the work being done by his agency to tackle the issue, including implementing a suicide prevention hotline.

“We have a major suicide prevention program, the most comprehensive in the nation,” Katz said. Katz questioned why Filner was focusing on the number of suicides instead of looking at treatment programs implemented to help prevent suicide.

Awareness of suicide among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans was heightened earlier this year when the Army said its suicide rate in 2006 rose to 17.3 per 100,000 troops — the highest level in 26 years of record-keeping.

The Department of Veterans Affairs tracks the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who commit suicide, but only if they have been discharged from the military.

The Pentagon tracks the number of suicides in Iraq and Afghanistan. For an earlier story, a Pentagon spokeswoman told The Associated Press the military does not keep track of whether active duty troops who took who took their own lives served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

In an e-mail on Wednesday, the same spokeswoman, Cynthia Smith, said, “We track all suicides, I just don’t have combat service information readily available.”

At least 152 troops have committed suicide in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Defense Manpower Data Center, which tracks casualties for the Pentagon.

On Oct. 31, the AP reported that preliminary research from the Department of Veterans Affairs had found that from the start of the war in Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, and the end of 2005, 283 troops who served in the wars who had been discharged from the military had committed suicide. On Wednesday, Katz said the VA’s number had been changed to 144 because some of the veterans counted were actually in the active military and not discharged on the day they committed suicide.

Smith said that the military’s suicide rate is still lower than that of the general population.

After leaving the military, however, veterans appear to be at greater risk for suicide than those who didn’t serve. Earlier this year, researchers at Portland State University in Oregon found male veterans were twice as likely to commit suicide as their civilian counterparts.

In a report last May, the VA Inspector General said VA officials estimate 1,000 suicides per year among veterans receiving care within the agency and as many as 5,000 per year among all veterans.

“When decision makers do no have reliable data, we must rely on anecdotal evidence,” said Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind. “While these may help inform us, it does not help us to develop strategies to diminish the risk and prevent incidents of suicide.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Data Sought on Veterans’ Suicide

Senator Whitehouse Reveals Smoking Gun of White House Claiming Not to be Bound by Any Law

December 7, 2007 – Damn, I love me some Sheldon Whitehouse. He, like, actually knows the law. And he, like, is willing to actually read the stuff he is exercising oversight over.

Which is why this speech he gave today is so important. Apparently, Whitehouse actually read the OLC opinions that justified the warrantless wiretap program and continue to justify the Administration’s wiretap authority today. Then, Whitehouse got the key concepts of some of those opinions declassified. Here’s his description of what he found.

For years under the Bush Administration, the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has issued highly classified secret legal opinions related to surveillance. This is an administration that hates answering to an American court, that wants to grade its own papers, and OLC is the inside place the administration goes to get legal support for its spying program.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was given access to those opinions, and spent hours poring over them. Sitting in that secure room, as a lawyer, as a former U.S. Attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island’s Governor, and State Attorney General, I was increasingly dismayed and amazed as I read on.

To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself. I will read all three, and then discuss each one.

An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

I noticed Whitehouse sniffing around the question of Executive Orders before. I thought (okay, hoped, really) that he was sniffing around 13292, which governs classification and declassification, including whether the Vice President can unilaterally declassify the identity of a CIA NOC. But it turns out he was sniffing around EO 12333, which governs Intelligence Activities (and though it’s not central to this discussion, here’s an amendment Bush made in 2004 to set up DNI).

Here’s what–according to Whitehouse, who after all ought to know–Bush believes about whether or not he has to follow EO 12333, an Executive Order signed by Saint Reagan.

Let’s start with number one. Bear in mind that the so-called Protect America Act that was stampeded through this great body in August provides no – zero – statutory protections for Americans traveling abroad from government wiretapping. None if you’re a businesswoman traveling on business overseas, none if you’re a father taking the kids to the Caribbean, none if you’re visiting uncles or aunts in Italy or Ireland, none even if you’re a soldier in the uniform of the United States posted overseas. The Bush Administration provided in that hastily-passed law no statutory restrictions on their ability to wiretap you at will, to tap your cell phone, your e-mail, whatever.

The only restriction is an executive order called 12333, which limits executive branch surveillance to Americans who the Attorney General determines to be agents of a foreign power. That’s what the executive order says.

But what does this administration say about executive orders?

An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

“Whenever (the President) wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order,” he may do so because “an executive order cannot limit a President.” And he doesn’t have to change the executive order, or give notice that he’s violating it, because by “depart(ing) from the executive order,” the President “has instead modified or waived it.”

So unless Congress acts, here is what legally prevents this President from wiretapping Americans traveling abroad at will: nothing. Nothing.

That was among the most egregious flaws in the bill passed during the August stampede they orchestrated by the Bush Administration – and this OLC opinion shows why we need to correct it.

I’ll put the rest of the excerpt of Whitehouse’s speech below. But for now, I want to discuss this.

Obviously, the implications of this OLC opinion go far beyond the warrantless wiretapping of Americans. While it appears that Whitehouse wasn’t primarily interested in EO 13292, presumably the OLC opinion governs all Executive Orders. So in other words, the President can declassify at will (well, he could do that anyway). Or more importantly, he could authorize his Vice President to refuse to tell us about his classification and declassification guidelines (as Dick did to ISOO–I’m betting this opinion is why AGAG refused to rule on the ISOO/Dick dispute), and he can unilaterally declassify anything and leak it to Judy Miller or some other hack journalist.

But here’s the other key point (and one of the reasons I like the way Whitehouse works). He specifically asked Michael Mukasey about EOs before Mukasey was approved.

2. Do you believe that the President may act contrary to a valid executive order? In the event he does, need he amend the executive order or provide any notice that he is acting contrary to the executive order?

ANSWER: Executive orders reflect the directives of the President. Should an executive order apply to the President and he determines that the order should be modified, the appropriate course would be for him to issue a new order or to amend the prior order.

So Mukasey, unaware that Bush had set aside all common sense, gave the common sense, legally sound answer. “Of course the President can’t violate his own EOs! He would need to change them first!”

And now the AG is on record as thinking this whole state of affairs stinks.

——————————————————————————–

Here’s Whitehouse’s speech in it’s entirety. And here’s a link to a copy at his website.

We will shortly consider making right the things that are wrong with the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration. It is worth for a moment considering why making this right is so important.

President Bush pressed this legislation not only to establish how our government can spy on foreign agents, but how his administration can spy on Americans. Make no mistake, the legislation we passed in August is significantly about spying on Americans – a business this administration should not be allowed to get into except under the closest supervision. We have a plain and tested device for keeping tabs on the government when it’s keeping tabs on Americans. It is our Constitution.

Our Constitution has as its most elemental provision the separation of governmental powers into three separate branches. When the government feels it necessary to spy on its own citizens, each branch has a role.

The executive branch executes the laws, and conducts surveillance. The legislative branch sets the boundaries that protect Americans from improper government surveillance. The judicial branch oversees whether the government has followed the Constitution and the laws that protect U.S. citizens from violations of their privacy and their civil rights.

It sounds basic, but even an elementary understanding of this balance of powers eludes the Bush administration. So now we have to repair this flawed and shoddy “Protect America Act.”

Why are we in Congress so concerned about this? Why is it so vital that we energetically assert the role of Congress and the Courts when the Bush Administration seeks to spy on Americans?

Because look what the Bush Administration does behind our backs when they think no one is looking.

For years under the Bush Administration, the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has issued highly classified secret legal opinions related to surveillance. This is an administration that hates answering to an American court, that wants to grade its own papers, and OLC is the inside place the administration goes to get legal support for its spying program.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was given access to those opinions, and spent hours poring over them. Sitting in that secure room, as a lawyer, as a former U.S. Attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island’s Governor, and State Attorney General, I was increasingly dismayed and amazed as I read on.

To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself. I will read all three, and then discuss each one.

An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.
The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Let’s start with number one. Bear in mind that the so-called Protect America Act that was stampeded through this great body in August provides no – zero – statutory protections for Americans traveling abroad from government wiretapping. None if you’re a businesswoman traveling on business overseas, none if you’re a father taking the kids to the Caribbean, none if you’re visiting uncles or aunts in Italy or Ireland, none even if you’re a soldier in the uniform of the United States posted overseas. The Bush Administration provided in that hastily-passed law no statutory restrictions on their ability to wiretap you at will, to tap your cell phone, your e-mail, whatever.

The only restriction is an executive order called 12333, which limits executive branch surveillance to Americans who the Attorney General determines to be agents of a foreign power. That’s what the executive order says.

But what does this administration say about executive orders?

An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

“Whenever (the President) wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order,” he may do so because “an executive order cannot limit a President.” And he doesn’t have to change the executive order, or give notice that he’s violating it, because by “depart(ing) from the executive order,” the President “has instead modified or waived it.”

So unless Congress acts, here is what legally prevents this President from wiretapping Americans traveling abroad at will: nothing. Nothing.

That was among the most egregious flaws in the bill passed during the August stampede they orchestrated by the Bush Administration – and this OLC opinion shows why we need to correct it.

Here’s number two.

The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

Yes, that’s right. The President, according to the George W. Bush OLC, has Article II power to determine what the scope of his Article II powers are.

Never mind a little decision called Marbury v. Madison, written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, establishing the proposition that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Does this administration agree that it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the President’s authority is under Article II? No, it is the President, according to this OLC, who decides the legal limits of his own Article II power.

The question “whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II,” is to be determined by the President’s minions, “exercising his constitutional authority under Article II.”

It really makes you wonder, who are these people? They have got to be smart people to get there. How can people who are so smart be so misguided?

And then, it gets worse. Remember point three.

The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Let that sink in a minute.

The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. This nation was founded in rejection of the royalist principles that “l’etat c’est moi” and “The King can do no wrong.” Our Attorney General swears an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States; we are not some banana republic in which the officials all have to kowtow to the “supreme leader.” Imagine a general counsel to a major U.S. corporation telling his board of directors, “in this company the counsel’s office is bound by the CEO’s legal determinations.” The board ought to throw that lawyer out – it’s malpractice, probably even unethical.

Wherever you are, if you are watching this, do me a favor. The next time you are in Washington, D.C., take a taxi some evening to the Department of Justice. Stand outside, and look up at that building shining against the starry night. Look at the sign outside- “The United States Department of Justice.” Think of the heroes who have served there, and the battles fought. Think of the late nights, the brave decisions, the hard work of advancing and protecting our democracy that has been done in those halls. Think about how that all makes you feel.

Then think about this statement:

The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

If you don’t feel a difference from what you were feeling a moment ago, well, congratulations – there is probably a job for you in the Bush administration. Consider the sad irony that this theory was crafted in that very building, by the George W. Bush Office of Legal Counsel.

In a nutshell, these three Bush administration legal propositions boil down to this:

“I don’t have to follow my own rules, and I don’t have to tell you when I’m breaking them.”
“I get to determine what my own powers are.”
“The Department of Justice doesn’t tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is.”

When the Congress of the United States is willing to roll over for an unprincipled President, this is where you end up. We should not even be having this discussion. But here we are. I implore my colleagues: reject these feverish legal theories. I understand political loyalty, trust me, I do. But let us also be loyal to this great institution we serve in the legislative branch of our government. Let us also be loyal to the Constitution we took an oath to defend, from enemies foreign and domestic. And let us be loyal to the American people who live each day under our Constitution’s principles and protections.

We simply cannot put the authority to wiretap Americans, whenever they step outside America’s boundaries, under the exclusive control and supervision of the executive branch. We do not allow it when Americans are here at home; we should not allow it when they travel abroad. The principles of congressional legislation and oversight, and of judicial approval and review, are simple and longstanding. Americans deserve this protection wherever on God’s green earth they may travel.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Senator Whitehouse Reveals Smoking Gun of White House Claiming Not to be Bound by Any Law

Letter to the Editor – Suicide is the Hidden Horror of the Iraq War

December 10, 2007 – Some months ago a friend of mine – an Iraq vet – committed suicide. He was a solid citizen, a hard working family man, serious, level-headed, and had a deep desire to help others. The kind of person who makes a community a better place to live.

Shortly after he returned from a tour in Iraq, he put a bullet through his head. Was this an unfortunate aberration, or was this an indication of something more insidious?

War changes people. Killing is an unnatural act, requiring a person to brutalize a basic moral instinct that seems to be hard-wired at birth into the vast majority of people. Participating in the often senseless death of civilians – and civilians pay the greatest price in war (as many as three million killed in Vietnam, over a million so far in Iraq) – plays havoc with the mind, often leading to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

At this point, almost a third of returning Iraq vets are reporting PTSD. Are these soldiers getting the help they need? Of course not. The current administration spends billions and billions on weapons of mass destruction while permitting the Veterans Administration to carry a backlog of 800,000 cases, and mental health is not a high priority. I know of one soldier with serious PTSD at a VA hospital whose treatment consists of one hour of group therapy a day. Now that’s caring for our troops.

What’s the result of this neglect? CBS News recently did a massive study on suicide going back 12 years, using data from the 45 states that responded to the CBS request for information. After looking at the data, specifically searching out suicides of veterans, CBS made an astounding discovery. In 2005, 6,256 vets committed suicide – undoubtedly more considering that five states didn’t share their statistics. That’s an average of 17 veteran suicides a day.

How does the VA respond to these shocking statistics? The VA maintains that these suicides result from “personal problems,” that these deaths have nothing to do with what soldiers saw and did in combat. I’m not a psychologist, but I could tell the VA that my friend was as steady and normal as anyone I’ve ever known.

He didn’t have “personal problems.” What he had was a continuous loop tape of blood, death, and destruction in his head that he couldn’t turn off. He honored his country’s call to war, and his country dishonored him when he returned, just as it dishonors each of those 17 vets who will commit suicide today and tomorrow and tomorrow.

Author Penny Coleman, widow of a vet who committed suicide, points out a chilling irony. Mr. Bush likes to say about suicide bombers that, “Those people, they aren’t like us; they don’t value life the way we do.” He often talks about suicide bombers being motivated by despair, neglect and poverty – though the facts don’t support his assertions. (He follows in the grand tradition of Ronald Reagan who said, “Facts are stupid things.) Yet 6 million veterans and their families have no healthcare. Brain injury and PTSD make getting and keeping a job almost impossible. And though vets make up only 11 percent of the adult population, they make up 26 percent of the homeless. Talk about despair, neglect, and poverty!

To quote Ms. Coleman directly from a recent article, “There is something so smugly superior in the way we talk about suicide bombers and the cultures that produce them. But here is an unsettling thought. In 2005, 6,256 American veterans took their own lives.

That same year, there were about 130 documented deaths of suicide bombers in Iraq. Do the math. That’s a ratio of 50-1. So who is it that is most effectively creating a culture of suicide and martyrdom? If George Bush is right, that it is despair, neglect and poverty that drive people to such acts, then isn’t it worth pointing out that we are doing a far better job?”

I hold Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney accountable for my friend’s death, and for the death of every vet who honorably served his country in this most dishonorable war, to be cruelly abandoned upon return.

The blood of these soldiers drips from the hands of Bush and Cheney, as does the blood of the innocent women and children slaughtered in this most evil of wars. Where is the outrage at these callous warmongers who extend tours and plot to attack yet another country while ignoring injured vets?

Where is the Congress? Where are my senators, Mr. Byrd and Mr. Rockefeller? What have we become that we allow this to continue?

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Letter to the Editor – Suicide is the Hidden Horror of the Iraq War

Boulder County Shelter Seeing New Generation of Homeless Veterans

December 10, 2007 – Iraq war veterans are starting to line up for free meals and a warm bed at the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless.

“Traditionally, we’ve seen veterans from Vietnam – veterans consistently have been 25 percent of the homeless population,” said Greg Harms, executive director of the shelter. “Just now, we’re starting to see veterans from our most recent war efforts.

“The longer we have protracted conflicts like the one we’re in now, the more likely there will be ramifications back home,” he said.

In this interview, Harms talks about the origins of the shelter and the growing need for its services. The shelter has applied for a Season to Share grant. His remarks have been edited for space and clarity.

Tell us about your clients

We serve about 1,000 people a year and we hear 1,000 different stories. Some are highly functional, working most days, but at jobs that might pay $7 or $8 or $9 an hour – not enough to get a foothold on an apartment in costly Boulder County. We also have folks who’ve fought addiction or mental health issues all their lives.

How did the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless get started?

A group of concerned citizens felt there needed to be a place, some shelter from the cold, for the homeless in Boulder. We started in 1982. Our 25th anniversary is coming up on Dec. 22.

Our first location was an old bus depot. Then we moved to the Alpine Motel in north Boulder. In 2003, we moved to our new building. It has 160 beds.

How did you get into this line of work?

I was on the board for five years, and I was a volunteer before that. I was in high-tech for a number of years. I have an MBA and an engineering degree. I just decided I wanted to do more than work and ski and ride my bike. So I called the shelter. I decided it was the work that I enjoy, so I made it my day job. It’s rewarding work, trying to make the world a better place. I get to apply my skill set to a cause I really believe in.

Can you talk about a case in which your agency really made a difference?

A little over a year ago we started a new program called Housing First, in which some of the chronically homeless are given permanent shelter without first necessarily proving that they’re sober and ready for the responsibility. Our very first placement was a guy who’d been on the streets for years and years – most local Boulder people would recognize him.

He was a chronic alcoholic. He’s now been housed close to 18 months. Most of that time he’s been sober. Housed and sober – that’s something that hasn’t happened to this guy in 20 years.

He’s an elderly guy, past working age and is on disability. He’s not on the street anymore, and he’s not circulating through all the support agencies like he was. He’s not showing up at the hospital emergency room. He’s not going to alcohol detox nearly as often. We’re probably actually saving the community considerable money by having him housed.

What’s the biggest need among the people you serve?

It varies. Some really need a roof over their heads. Others need mental health attention. The mental health center here in Boulder County has seen its budget cut about 25 percent over the past four years. The one generalization is that they are all poor.

We have 45 people on staff and 1,000 volunteers each year. It truly is a community shelter, supported by donations. But we can always use winter clothing, coats and hats and gloves, especially for men. Blankets we can always use.

Boulder Shelter for the Homeless

* Mission: Provide safe shelter, food, support services and an avenue to self-sufficiency for homeless adults in the community.
* Founded: 1982
* People helped: About 1,000
* Staff: 45
* Volunteers:1,000
* Budget: $1.5 million
* Web site: bouldershelter.org

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Boulder County Shelter Seeing New Generation of Homeless Veterans

Victim Claims Gang-Rape Covered Up By US, Halliburton/KBR

December 10, 2007 – A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.

“Don’t plan on working back in Iraq. There won’t be a position here, and there won’t be a position in Houston,” Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.

“It felt like prison,” says Jones, who told her story to ABC News as part of an upcoming “20/20” investigation. “I was upset; I was curled up in a ball on the bed; I just could not believe what had happened.”

Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.

“I said, ‘Dad, I’ve been raped. I don’t know what to do. I’m in this container, and I’m not able to leave,'” she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

“We contacted the State Department first,” Poe told ABCNews.com, “and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen” — from her American employer.

Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones’ camp, where they rescued her from the container.

According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by “several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally.”

Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped “both vaginally and anally,” but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.

A spokesperson for the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security told ABCNews.com he could not comment on the matter.

Over two years later, the Justice Department has brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case.

Legal experts say Jones’ alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.

“It’s very troubling,” said Dean John Hutson of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. “The way the law presently stands, I would say that they don’t have, at least in the criminal system, the opportunity for justice.”

Congressman Poe says neither the departments of State nor Justice will give him answers on the status of the Jones investigation.

Asked what reasons the departments gave for the apparent slowness of the probes, Poe sounded frustrated.

“There are several, I think, their excuses, why the perpetrators haven’t been prosecuted,” Poe told ABC News. “But I think it is the responsibility of our government, the Justice Department and the State Department, when crimes occur against American citizens overseas in Iraq, contractors that are paid by the American public, that we pursue the criminal cases as best as we possibly can and that people are prosecuted.”

Since no criminal charges have been filed, the only other option, according to Hutson, is the civil system, which is the approach that Jones is trying now. But Jones’ former employer doesn’t want this case to see the inside of a civil courtroom.

KBR has moved for Jones’ claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom. It says her employment contract requires it.

In arbitration, there is no public record nor transcript of the proceedings, meaning that Jones’ claims would not be heard before a judge and jury. Rather, a private arbitrator would decide Jones’ case. In recent testimony before Congress, employment lawyer Cathy Ventrell-Monsees said that Halliburton won more than 80 percent of arbitration proceedings brought against it.

In his interview with ABC News, Rep. Poe said he sided with Jones.

“Air things out in a public forum of a courtroom,” said Rep. Poe. “That’s why we have courts in the United States.”

In her lawsuit, Jones’ lawyer, Todd Kelly, says KBR and Halliburton created a “boys will be boys” atmosphere at the company barracks which put her and other female employees at great risk.

“I think that men who are there believe that they live without laws,” said Kelly. “The last thing she should have expected was for her own people to turn on her.”

Halliburton, which has since divested itself of KBR, says it “is improperly named” in the suit.

In a statement, KBR said it was “instructed to cease” its own investigation by U.S. government authorities “because they were assuming sole responsibility for the criminal investigations.”

“The safety and security of all employees remains KBR’s top priority,” it said in a statement. “Our commitment in this regard is unwavering.”

Since the attacks, Jones has started a nonprofit foundation called the Jamie Leigh Foundation, which is dedicated to helping victims who were raped or sexually assaulted overseas while working for government contractors or other corporations.

“I want other women to know that it’s not their fault,” said Jones. “They can go against corporations that have treated them this way.” Jones said that any proceeds from the civil suit will go to her foundation.

“There needs to be a voice out there that really pushed for change,” she said. “I’d like to be that voice.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Victim Claims Gang-Rape Covered Up By US, Halliburton/KBR

How to Keep an Ex-Terrorist Talking

December 9, 2007 – The informer was growing terrified about the prospect of testifying against Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden, he feared, would get to him or his family. Allah, he suspected, was already punishing him; his father was sick and his infant child had died. “Anything I touch, I don’t feel happy,” he said.

But the United States prosecutors and F.B.I. agents who had been hiding him in witness protection since his defection from Al Qaeda reassured him over and over: Think positive. He was probably the safest man in America. Allah would surely support his decision to turn on his fellow terrorists.

Their soothing counsel veered into theology and philosophy and even psychiatry. “Jamal, just look at it this way,” one official explained. “We’re part of the giant therapy group that you’re now going to be involved with, O.K.?”

That exchange in 2000 — disclosed in transcripts that have been filed publicly for the first time — was part of two years’ worth of videotaped talks between federal authorities and Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, a former payroll manager for Osama bin Laden who became the first and most important Qaeda member to cooperate with the government as it began investigating the organization.

Mr. Fadl’s riveting testimony was critical in the 2001 trial in which four men were convicted of conspiracy in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa. An appeal of the verdict is to be argued tomorrow, and the videotaped conversations are expected to be part of that debate.

But the 900 pages of videotape transcripts offer much more than material for a legal dispute. They provide an extraordinary glimpse into a little-known, continuing process — the delicate care and management of a cooperative former terrorist — that can seem oddly nuanced and even gentle in the era of Guantánamo and debates over torture. On Thursday, for example, the C.I.A. acknowledged that it had destroyed videotapes showing its use of harsh interrogation methods on captured Qaeda operatives.

These pages, on the other hand, reveal how differently the government has treated terrorists who volunteer information. And they show how messy and improvised the negotiations with Mr. Fadl turned out to be, as federal prosecutors labored in unfamiliar territory, building a case not against a mob family, but against a mysterious terrorist group with international reach.

The government officials — led by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who would later become the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case — can be seen trying to tamp down Mr. Fadl’s, and his wife’s, growing fear about his testifying against one of the world’s most dangerous men. That fear turns to panic after prosecutors lure another Qaeda operative, a relative of Mr. Fadl’s, into custody and he refuses to cooperate.

Mr. Fadl, a Sudanese who is still in hiding and may be called to testify in future trials, can be seen pressing officials to protect and provide for numerous relatives in Africa, where the authorities admit their ability to help is limited.

As a Muslim, he challenges his American handlers with perplexing religious questions. As a foreigner, he becomes frustrated when the government, for all its powers, cannot get him the papers he needs to get a job.

The transcripts show a complicated friendship between Mr. Fadl and the Americans that lurches from tearful counseling sessions to playful humor. Prosecutors and agents refer to Mr. Fadl as Junior, and chide him about his fondness for fast food.

Mr. Fitzgerald, speaking to Mr. Fadl on a videotelephone, compares the marshal guarding him to the unseen crime-fighting boss in the television series “Charlie’s Angels.”

But, Mr. Fitzgerald points out, “Jamal is not quite Farrah Fawcett.”

“Not even close,” the marshal adds.

The transcripts themselves emerged from a messy process: The videotapes they detail were made by mistake, from 2000 to 2002, by federal marshals who had set up the videophone hookup so prosecutors in New York could keep in close touch with Mr. Fadl. Prosecutors and the F.B.I. had not authorized the taping, and when prosecutors learned of it in 2002 they were shocked, knowing they would have to share the tapes with defense lawyers who were appealing the embassy bombings verdict.

The taped conversations continued for several months after Sept. 11, 2001, but the transcripts give no indication that the attacks changed Mr. Fadl’s treatment, or his willingness to assist. A former federal official said Mr. Fadl helped identify former associates who had been captured in Afghanistan.

Deflecting His Demands

Mr. Fadl’s cooperation began in 1996, after he walked into a United States embassy in Africa and offered his help, only later revealing that he had embezzled money from Mr. bin Laden. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy for activities in Al Qaeda, and is not expected to go to prison.

In return for information about the organization’s history and leadership, the government brought over more than a dozen of his relatives from Sudan, and spent nearly $1 million for his family’s housing, protection and medical bills.

But by the time the videotaping began in early 2000, Mr. Fadl was feeling bored and isolated in his new American life, sequestered with his wife and several children in an undisclosed location.

In Sudan, he pointed out, he had once run a factory. Now, there was little to fill his day besides playing soccer, smoking cigarettes and watching television. Even his children were frustrated with him. “They ask me, ‘Why you don’t work? Dad never all day work.’”

He said he loved helping the authorities, but felt badly undercompensated.

“I’ve been doing all kinds of things, including giving information to protect the American citizens, and I feel I’m from here,” he said. “And I hear in the newspapers every day that the United States is giving money to Egypt, one billion to Jordan.”

The Americans diplomatically parried his demands, pointing out that their agreement did not allow them to pay for his information, and that they had already spent large sums on the family’s behalf.

“The more things you pile on,” one official told him, “the more people will look at it and say, ‘You know, we can only do so much.’”

The officials — the transcripts usually do not identify the prosecutor or agent speaking — promised to get him immigration papers, yet conceded they could not speed citizenship for a protected witness. “Not even God can get citizenship in the program very, very quickly,” one official said.

All the same, an official assured Mr. Fadl that “if there’s any witness in the world we will not forget, it will be you.”

He added, “It’s not like you’re going to testify on Friday, and you never hear from us again, O.K.?”

God and the Devil

As the moment for that testimony approached — the embassy bombings trial, which began in January 2001 — Mr. Fadl began to focus on a more pressing fear: that after years of private preparation, he would soon have to enter a public courtroom and speak against Al Qaeda. And if Mr. bin Laden were captured, Mr. Fadl could face his old boss from the witness stand.

He worried about his family, at home and overseas. “They try hurt someone I love very much,” he said.

Mr. Fadl floated a suggestion: If the Americans found another informer, could that witness testify in his place?

An official responded bluntly: “Jamal, as a friend, I’ll tell you this: I don’t think — I don’t think there is any chance.”

“I’m just so worried,” Mr. Fadl said later.

The official noted that some of Mr. Fadl’s closest friends in the F.B.I. would also testify.

“You got gun all the time with you, though,” Mr. Fadl replied.

Violence was not his only fear. Mr. Fadl wondered aloud whether his family’s run of misfortune — including his baby’s death and his father’s illness — sprang from some supernatural source. He had once heard a bin Laden adviser condemn a dissident and predict that his life would be a disaster.

Mr. Fadl said he was reading the Koran and praying. “We have special prayers to chase the devil,” he said. “I don’t know if you have this in Christianity.”

The Americans tried patiently to convince him that his recent troubles were unconnected to one another, and urged him to see the bright side: His children, for example, were getting a good education and a great future.

“I know everything great,” Mr. Fadl agreed.

Still, he had been doing some math: Even if Al Qaeda had the support of only 5 or 10 percent of the people in Arab countries, millions would be praying for his demise. “This what I believe,” he said. “They’re going to pray against me.”

“Jamal,” one official interjected, “if what you’re doing is right, and it is —— ”

“I believe that,” Mr. Fadl said.

“And Allah knows that, O.K.? So, God isn’t going to listen to 90 million people who are wrong. He’ll listen to the 210 million that are right, including yourself. That’s why God is God.”

There was still another force working on Mr. Fadl. “It’s my wife,” he said. “I love her.”

His wife, Nadia, had long been unhappy with their life in hiding. She did not speak English or drive, had no friends and was nervous when he was away. When he came home late one night after playing billiards, she locked him out and ordered him to sleep in the garage.

“Wait until your clothes come flying out the window,” one official remarked, to much laughter. “Welcome to America.”

Yet the officials sympathized. One said it had to be hard for a spouse to be “just dragged into a situation” like this.

As the trial loomed, Mr. Fadl said his wife was terrified that Mr. bin Laden would retaliate. “This guy, he got people everywhere,” she told him.

One day he broke the news that she wanted him to refuse to testify, even if that meant prison. She later declared that she would return to Sudan, despite the risks.

The officials had no answer for that. “We can’t make her stay here,” one said. “You know that.”

Finally, she showed up for a videoconference, where they faced her fury. Speaking through an interpreter, she suggested she had been tricked into joining her husband in the United States, claiming she was told he was working for a company, not fighting Al Qaeda.

“Well, we’re going to have a difference of opinion on that, Nadia,” one American told her. “I was there, and I’m the one who spoke to you.”

At the next conference, she insisted that Mr. Fadl should not have to testify more than once. “I don’t agree with this,” she said, turning to him. “Do you agree with this?”

There was talk about who would keep the children if she left. “The uncertainty drives me insane,” she said. “You guys are not concerned with him like I am.”

Ultimately, she remained, and in February 2001, her husband testified for four days in Manhattan federal court. The judge ordered the sketch artists not to draw him.

‘A Hard Path’

Before the trial began, however, Mr. Fadl and his American friends had another difficult issue to discuss: how to persuade his niece’s husband in Sudan to defect and join him as an informer.

Mr. Fadl said the relative, Mohamed Suleiman al Nalfi, had worked with Mr. bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and would have fresh information.

They agreed on a sting operation. Mr. Fadl, pretending to be somewhere overseas, would call Mr. Nalfi and invite him to meet him. Once he arrived, American officials would confront Mr. Nalfi and make their pitch.

They worked out what Mr. Fadl would say on the phone. “Follow your script,” an official told him. “Let him talk so you don’t seem like you’re anxious.”

There was a risk: If Mr. Nalfi refused to cooperate, he would be arrested. Mr. Fadl seemed to accept that possibility. “This is the best chance for him to do the right thing,” Mr. Fadl said.

“He’ll thank you,” one official said later.

Mr. Fadl succeeded in luring his relative out of Sudan, but Mr. Nalfi refused to cooperate and was imprisoned.

When told the news, Mr. Fadl panicked and began to sob. He had a new fear — that Mr. Nalfi’s family might retaliate against his relatives in Sudan. Mr. Nalfi, he said, would tell everyone he had been betrayed: “Jamal, he sold me to American government.”

The suggestion of a family vendetta put the Americans back on familiar ground.

“If you were involved in, like, organized crime or something,” one official said, “and you were testifying against Cousin Vinny or something, you know, that’s always a problem.” The government, he said, could bring over more family members and place them in witness protection. “It’s something that the marshals deal with all the time.”

But Mr. Fadl was still distraught. And in the end, the Americans ran out of reassurances.

“You’ve chosen a hard path for yourself,” one official told him. “It’s not easy. The whole thing is not easy. You know, things don’t happen the way we plan them to happen.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on How to Keep an Ex-Terrorist Talking

Editorial Column – A Flood of Stressed Veterans is Expected

December 9, 2007 – Last May, Tim Chapman was sitting in his car on the edge of a cliff, weeping. If he took his foot off the brake, he would go over the edge – to silence, to peace, and to death.

“It was a truck stop in Truckee,” Chapman said. “I was driving to Reno. I was literally going to kill myself. I kept thinking: I should have stayed in Iraq. I should have died over there.”

The 23-year-old National Guardsman, just six months back from a tour in the combat zone, sat on the brink for two hours. Even today, he isn’t sure why he didn’t launch himself over the side.

Instead, he backed off the cliff and drove himself to a hospital in Roseville. Within three days, he was in the psych ward at a Veterans Affairs hospital. Today, after extensive therapy, he thinks his life is beginning to make sense again.

It’s a wrenching story. But this isn’t the end of it. It is just the beginning.

First a few facts. Bobby Rosenthal, regional manager for homeless programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, estimates that one third of the more than 6,000 homeless people – about 2,100 – in San Francisco are veterans.

And no wonder the number is so high. California leads the nation in homeless veterans by a mile, according to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. The 2006 numbers showed 49,724 homeless vets in California. The next nearest state was New York with 21,147.

Now here’s the scary part. Compared with what’s coming, that’s nothing.

Roughly 750,000 troops served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, often with multiple tours of duty. Many are only now returning home. But unlike Vietnam veterans, who didn’t begin to demonstrate post-war trauma until five or 10 years after they left the war, this group seems to be on a fast track.

“Everything is speeded up,” said Michael Blecker, executive director of San Francisco’s Swords to Ploughshares program. “What we’re seeing in San Francisco is guys in their 20s with the kind of stress and trauma that makes it impossible to go on with their lives.”

It’s been called a health care tsunami. Because not only are the Iraq vets prone to post-traumatic stress disorder (something Chapman has battled) but with improved battlefield health care, far more are surviving traumatic injury. On one hand, that’s good news, but it also means many more vets who are severely disabled, having lost arms and legs. Both factors increase the chances that the returning troops will join the sad ranks of homeless veterans.

Cities all over the country are bracing themselves, although some, like San Francisco, are bound to be hit harder. Mayor Gavin Newsom says that at a recent conference of mayors, the group passed a resolution asking the VA “to tell us what you are going to do.”

“It’s great lip service,” Newsom said, “but show me the money.”

If history holds, the mayors shouldn’t hold their breath. If anything, benefits for veterans have been restricted. To take one example, many of us think of the World War II G.I. Bill as a shining example of a reward for service, paying for college for vets. But Blecker, of Swords for Ploughshares, says the current version “is in no way, shape, or form near enough” to pay for a degree.

As Newsom says, “Yeah, support the troops – as long as they are young, healthy and a great photo op.”

For San Francisco, the potential impact could be huge. An influx of traumatized, battle-scarred veterans presents a scary future. Consider the case of Scott Kehler, a veteran of the first Gulf War, who needed years to work through his demons. He recalls passing burned bodies and the constant fear that an explosion would suddenly erupt in the street.

“It was the things I didn’t want to see at night when I closed my eyes,” Kehler said. “I didn’t know what PTSD was. I only knew my dreams, my shame, my guilt, was all coming together.”

Kehler spent almost 16 years kicking around the country. He lived in shelters in San Francisco and ate in free kitchens until a friend suggested he get in contact with Ploughshares. He checked into the group’s transitional housing, a 60-person unit on Treasure Island, and began to find himself.

Today he has been hired by the organization as a residence manager. He’s lived there 18 months, which doesn’t sound like much until you hear him say, “This is the longest I have lived in one place since 1990.”

Kehler, who is mentoring Chapman, is testimony to the effectiveness of the Ploughshares slogan – “veterans helping veterans.”

“Especially now that we’ve got our veterans coming home from Iraq,” said Ploughshares counselor Tyrone Boyd, “we’re going to need people that have been in combat so they know what they are talking about.”

The challenges are unique. Wanda Heffernon, a program and clinical counselor for Ploughshares, said they had a new inductee who slept in the closet. It was the only place he felt safe.

It’s the sudden transition that gets them.

“One day they are fighting in a war,” said Kehler. “The next day they are sitting at their mother’s kitchen table.”

Is it any wonder they end up on the street? Kehler battled alcohol abuse, but Chapman is part of the new breed, who turn to methamphetamine. Married when he returned, he lost his wife and all contact with his parents. Eventually he ended up sleeping in an alley. Now drug-free, living at Treasure Island housing, holding down a full-time job, and reconnected with his mother, he is testimony to the idea that peer counseling seems to work. Ploughshares has earned support from Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Imagine the impact it would have on the San Francisco homeless problem if one third of those on street were able to get help and housing.

But what the vets don’t have is funding.

“Why isn’t the federal government doing something about this? Why isn’t the [VA] doing something?” Blecker asks. “The irresponsibility of our leaders, not to address this, makes me want to tear my hair out.”

The VA’s Rosenthal – who gets high marks from local leaders – says the problem is not being ignored.

“It’s a whole new set of challenges,” she said. “The VA is looking at it. Let’s hope we’ve learned our lesson from Vietnam.”

We can only hope.

“You know what scares me?” asks Boyd. “I haven’t heard a plan (from the federal government) about what they are going to do when the troops come home. What’s the plan?”

Well?

C.W. Nevius’ column appears Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. His blog C.W. Nevius.blog can be found at SFGate.com. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Editorial Column – A Flood of Stressed Veterans is Expected