Former Military Attorney: Waterboarding Torture is Illegal

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I’d always conclude by saying, “I know you won’t remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” That’s a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to “waterboarding.”

That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as “simulated drowning.” That’s incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death.

That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding’s effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government — whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community — has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: “I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure.” He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. “Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,” he replied, “just gasping between life and death.”

Nielsen’s experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan’s military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal’s records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen’s. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Q: Like you were drowning?

A: Drowning — you could hardly breathe.

Here’s the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese: They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the “water cure” to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that “the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee’s mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation.”

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners’ civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to “subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning.”

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That’s a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is — as well as what it ought to be.

Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Former Military Attorney: Waterboarding Torture is Illegal

Iraq War-Related Soldier and Veteran Suicides Top 430

It’s time to change of count of American war dead upward.

The Associated Press has got hold of a preliminary government study on suicides by Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. According to the VA, at least 283 combat veterans who left the military between the start of the war in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 and the end of 2005 took their own lives. In addition, 147 troops have killed themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began bringing the government count to 430.

 

The VA’s count is not a complete one, however. It does not include members of the military who returned from Iraq and then killed themselves before being discharged from the service – people like Sgt Brian Rand who shot himself in the head after returning home from his second tour.

It also doesn’t include the deaths of people like Sgt. James Dean who was shot by Maryland state troopers after he barricaded himself in his father’s farmhouse. Observers call those deaths “suicide by cop.”

 

And it doesn’t include the deaths of people like Sgt. Gerald Cassidy, a 32 year old Indiana National Guardsman, who died at Fort Knox five months after returning from Iraq with brain damage from a roadside bomb.

How many more American deaths continue to go uncounted?

Regardless, it’s clear is that we need to change our count of casualties upward from 4,229 US military deaths (3,842 in Iraq and 387 in Afghanistan) to closer to 5,000 – possibly more when you consider those deaths that still haven’t been counted.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Iraq War-Related Soldier and Veteran Suicides Top 430

Bush Administration Gives Immunity to Blackwater Mercenaries Who Killed Iraqi Civilians

State to Blackwater: Nothing You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You in a Court of Law

October 30, 2007 – Apparently there is one set of rights for Blackwater mercenaries and another for the rest of us. Normally when a group of people alleged to have gunned down 17 civilians in a lawless shooting spree are questioned, investigators will tell them something along the lines of: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” But that is not what the Blackwater operatives involved in the September 16 Nisour Square shooting in Iraq were told. Most of the Blackwater shooters were questioned by State Department Diplomatic Security investigators with the understanding that their statements and information gleaned from them could not be used to bring criminal charges against them, nor could they be introduced as evidence. In other words, “Anything you say can’t and won’t be used against you in a court of law.”
 
ABC News obtained copies of sworn statements given by Blackwater guards in the immediate aftermath of the shootings, all of which begin, “I understand this statement is being given in furtherance of an official administrative inquiry,” and that, “I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding.” Constitutional law expert Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says the offering of so-called “use immunity” agreements by the State Department is “very irregular,” adding he could not recall a precedent for it. In normal circumstances, Ratner said, such immunity is only granted after a Grand Jury or Congressional committee has been convened and the party has invoked their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. It would then be authorized by either a judge or the committee.

Military law expert Scott Horton of Human Rights First says, “What the State Department has done in this case is inconsistent with proper law enforcement standards. It is likely to undermine an ultimate prosecution, if not make it impossible. In this sense, the objective of the State Department in doing this is exposed to question. It seems less to be to collect the facts than to immunize Blackwater and its employees. By purporting to grant immunity, the State Department draws itself more deeply into the wrongdoing and adopts a posture vis-a-vis Blackwater that appears downright conspiratorial. This will make the fruits of its investigation a tough sell.”

Ratner says that while what was offered the Blackwater operatives is not immunity from prosecution, prosecutors would need to prove they did not use the sworn statements as part of their investigation. “Even though the person can be prosecuted if independent evidence is relied upon, often this is hard to demonstrate,” he says. As an example of the problems such immunity can pose, Ratner points to the case of Oliver North. “He had been granted ‘use immunity’ and was then prosecuted, supposedly on the basis of independent evidence,” Ratner says. “However, his conviction was reversed in the court of appeals because it could not be demonstrated that all of the evidence against him had an independent source outside of his own testimony.”

Aside from the fundamental problem that there is quite possibly no legal framework for charging the Blackwater shooters under any legal system–US civilian law, military law or Iraqi law–legal analysts and a former federal prosecutor say the State Department has already tainted the Nisour Square criminal investigation in several ways. The FBI was not dispatched to investigate the case until two weeks after the shootings occurred, meaning that the initial investigation was in the hands of a non-law enforcement agency that just happens to be Blackwater’s employer. By the time actual law enforcement, the FBI, was sent to Baghdad, the crime scene had been tainted and some of the perpetrators questioned with the alleged immunity provision. “To rely on non-law enforcement to conduct sensitive law enforcement activities makes no sense if you want impartial justice,” says Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who currently serves as Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “This investigation has already taken so long and it looks like the State Department has impeded the possibility of a successful criminal investigation.” The Washington Post reported that “Some of the Blackwater guards have subsequently refused to be interviewed by the FBI, citing promises of immunity from State.”

This is hardly the first indication that the government’s investigation of the Nisour Square shootings was lacking in integrity and impartiality. The State Department’s initial report on the shooting was drafted by a Blackwater contractor on official US government stationary. The FBI team initially dispatched to Baghdad to investigate Blackwater was to be guarded by Blackwater until Sen. Patrick Leahy raised questions about the arrangement forcing the Bureau to announce it would be guarded by official personnel and not personnel from the same company it was investigating.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this story (aside from the loss of Iraqi civilian life) is that even if Blackwater was not so politically connected to the White House and even if there was a truly independent US Justice Department and even if immunity had not been offered and even if there was an aggressive investigation, it may all be totally irrelevant. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently dispatched a team to Baghdad led by veteran diplomat Patrick Kennedy to review the department’s private security force, the team returned with the conclusion that it “is unaware of any basis for holding non-Department of Defense contractors accountable under US law.”

While there are currently moves afoot in the US Congress to adjust language in the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to allow for prosecutions of State Department contractor crimes in US civilian courts and although there is a debate over whether the court martial system could be applied, the reality is that the political will to prosecute contractors has been totally absent since day one of the Iraq occupation. Not a single armed contractor has ever been prosecuted for crimes committed in Iraq–not under US civilian law, not under military law and certainly not in Iraqi courts, which have been banned by the US occupation authorities from going after private contractors.

What is so often lost in this new debate on accountability and oversight is this fact: private contractors now outnumber regular soldiers on the Iraq battlefield. The military–with its massive bureaucracy–has been unable or unwilling to effectively monitor the actions of its soldiers and prosecute them for crimes. Who will effectively oversee the 180,000-strong shadow corporate army? Will FBI teams really be running around Iraq chasing allegations (ever increasing) of contractor crimes and misconduct? Who will guard the investigators? Who will interview Iraqi witnesses? Where will the funding come from? Who will arrest the heavily-armed mercenary alleged to have committed a crime, particularly when he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do in keeping VIP US officials alive in Iraq?

While there may be some token prosecutions that stem from the recent uptick in reporting on contractor crimes in Iraq, the reality is that without private forces from Blackwater and its ilk, the US occupation of Iraq would be untenable. Nothing will be done that would actually jeopardize the use of such forces in the war zone. While Blackwater’s conduct in Iraq is horrifying, it is important to remember that US ambassadors–all four who have served under the Iraq occupation–owe their lives to Blackwater’s shoot-first-and-never-ask-questions cowboy tactics. They are the reason the company can brag it has never lost an American life it was protecting. Blackwater does its job and while it is essential to prosecute its operatives for their crimes, the ultimately responsible party is the entity that hired them and deployed them armed and dangerous in Iraq.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Bush Administration Gives Immunity to Blackwater Mercenaries Who Killed Iraqi Civilians

The Hidden Iraq War: 5 Million Iraq War Casualties – 1 Million Killed plus 4 Million Refugees

November 1, 2007 – Amman, Jordan–It is said that Iraq is the world’s best-known conflict but the least well-known humanitarian crisis.

In the United States, where public attention span is low but the capacity for denial high, Iraq’s daily carnage no longer commands headlines. American public discourse long ago shifted to the domestic political implications of Iraq for George W. Bush et al.

Those who do think of Iraq think mostly of the murderous sectarianism of the Sunnis and Shiites. If Muslims are killing each other, there’s not much America can do, Iraq being another Yugoslavia – once the iron grip of Saddam Hussein or Josip Tito was gone, all the old animosities re-emerged.

But in Iraq, there was no such suppressed hatred. Shiites and Sunnis had always lived in harmony. Inter-marriage was common. The bombed-out Shiite shrine in Samara was in a Sunni neighbourhood.

The more apt parallel is with the 1947 partition of British India that precipitated a mass migration and a massacre among Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs who had lived in harmony for centuries.

When the state abrogates its most basic role of maintaining social order, anti-social forces and criminals can send scared people into a frenzy of primitive behaviour.

What’s happening in Iraq is the direct result of American war-mongering and criminal incompetence.

Since the 2003 U.S. invasion, between 75,000 and 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed (depending on who’s counting). This is in addition to the 1 million Iraqis, half of them children under 5, who died slow deaths during the 1991-2003 U.S.-led United Nations economic sanctions (a UNESCO estimate).

More than 4 million Iraqis have been displaced. Half have fled to Syria, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere.

This is the largest forced migration of people in the Middle East since 1948, according to UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency.

Nearly 8 million Iraqis – one in three – are in need of humanitarian aid.

Nearly half the internally displaced people do not have access to the Public Distribution System of ration cards and permits.

Only a third of Iraqis can access safe drinking water. The health system is collapsing. The drug distribution system has broken down. The sewage system has collapsed and only a fifth of Iraqis have access to a functional sanitary system.

Three-fourths of the internally displaced are either women (28 per cent) or children (48 per cent).

“Ninety per cent of those who die violent deaths are men, leaving huge numbers of widows and orphans without support,” according to a special Iraq edition of Forced Migration Review, a publication of the Refugee Studies Centre of the University of Oxford (fmreview.org/Iraq).

“In the short term, there appears to be no way to address the protection vacuum in much of Iraq. Multinational Force Iraq and the Iraqi Security Forces are incapable of protecting civilians.”

Prostitution is on the rise. “Young girls are increasingly obliged to contribute to family incomes. Consequently, the incidence of sexual and gender-based violence is on the rise,” say Jose Riera and Andrew Harper, of UNHCR (unhcr.org/iraq). “Child labour and other means of exploitation are increasingly reported.”

UNICEF estimates that 4.5 million children are under-nourished. One child in 10 is under-weight. One in five is short for their age. In some areas, up to 90 per cent of children are not in school.

This is one reality show you won’t see on your television.

Haroon Siddiqui, the Star’s editorial page editor emeritus, appears Thursday and Sunday. Email: hsiddiq@thestar.ca

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on The Hidden Iraq War: 5 Million Iraq War Casualties – 1 Million Killed plus 4 Million Refugees

Civil Liberties Defeat: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Support Bush Nominee Who Refused to Call Waterboarding Torture

November 2, 2007, WASHINGTON, DC (AP) – Michael Mukasey drew closer to becoming attorney general Friday after two key Senate Democrats said they would vote for him despite his refusal to define an interrogation technique that stimulates drowning as torture.  [VCS Note: If Mukasey is confirmed, the world will want to know if he will name a special prosecutor to investigate President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney and their use of illegal torture.]

The decision by Sens. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein came shortly after the chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced he would vote against Mukasey, a former federal judge.

“This is an extremely difficult decision,” Schumer said in a statement, adding that Mukasey “is not my ideal choice.”

In announcing her support for Mukasey, Feinstein, D-Calif., said “first and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales,” referring to the former attorney general who resigned in September after months of questions about his honesty.

Including Leahy, five of the Judiciary Committee’s 10 Democrats had said they would vote against Mukasey’s confirmation after the nominee earlier this week refused to say that waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning, is torture and therefore illegal.

But with nine Republicans on the panel, Schumer’s and Feinstein’s support for Mukasey virtually guarantees that a majority of the committee will recommend his confirmation when it votes on it next Tuesday.

Leaders in both parties have said they expect Mukasey to get at least 70 votes when the full, 100-member Senate votes on his confirmation. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had said he would not bring it up for a vote without Judiciary Committee action first.

Schumer’s announcement followed a private meeting Friday with Mukasey to discuss waterboarding.

“I deeply oppose it,” Schumer said of waterboarding. “Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush, will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding.”

Schumer, who was Mukasey’s chief Democratic sponsor, said the retired judge told him that if Congress passes a law banning waterboarding “the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law.” Schumer said Mukasey said he would enforce any congressional ban the controversial interrogation method.

Torture is considered a war crime by the international community and waterboarding has been banned by the U.S. military, but CIA interrogators are believed to have used the technique on terror detainees as recently as a few years ago.

Mukasey has called waterboarding personally “repugnant,” and in a letter to senators this week said he did not know enough about how it has been used to define it as torture. He also said he thought it would be irresponsible to discuss it since doing so could make interrogators and other government officials vulnerable to lawsuits.

Early Friday, President Bush renewed his plea for Mukasey’s confirmation.

“He’s a good man. He’s a fair man. He’s an independent man, and he’s plenty qualified to be attorney general,” Bush said of Mukasey, just after landing in Columbia, S.C., on his way to a political fundraiser and to give a speech at Fort Jackson.

On Thursday, Bush had warned that the Justice Department would go without a leader in a time of war if Democrats thwarted Mukasey.

Bush also said that if the Judiciary Committee were to block Mukasey because of his noncommittal stance on the legality of waterboarding, it would set a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for attorney general.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Civil Liberties Defeat: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Support Bush Nominee Who Refused to Call Waterboarding Torture

Scandal: Tampa Bay VA hospitals forced to turn away patients

Overloading is the reason for denying services. Critics say it’s a national crisis.

The Associated Press, October 29, 2007, Saint Petersburg, Florida – Two Tampa Bay veterans hospitals turn away critically ill patients for huge chunks of the year because of an overloaded veterans’ health-care system.

James A. Haley VA Medical Center in Tampa and Bay Pines VA Medical Center in St. Petersburg are the nation’s busiest and fourth-busiest Veterans Affairs hospitals, respectively.

Haley has been on “divert” status for critical patients 27 percent of the time since Jan. 1, 2006, or the equivalent of about 170 days, VA figures reviewed by the St. Petersburg Times show. The hospital diverts all patients regardless of condition 16 percent of the time.

Since 2000, Bay Pines has diverted patients far more frequently than any other hospital in Pinellas County. Last year, it diverted veterans during 1,150 hours, about 48 days, or 13 percent of the time, Pinellas paramedic records show.

“There’s no intent to deny veterans care,” said Dr. George Van Buskirk, chief of staff at Bay Pines. “I like to think we’re as compassionate as possible. We’d rather send them out to a place that can take care of them than have them languish on a gurney in the hallway.”

But some question the VA’s resources.

“The VA has never dealt with its capacity issues seriously,” said Bill Geden, district director in west-central Florida for the Blinded Veterans Association. “They’re underfunded, undermanned and overloaded.”

In one instance, Bay Pines said it “made a rare mistake” last June when it turned away a nonveteran who suffered a fatal heart attack 200 feet from its emergency room.

The VA says it cannot assess how the Florida hospitals’ diversion rates compare to others nationally. But officials at both Haley and Bay Pines say they are making it a priority to improve performance.

In 2003, for example, Bay Pines diverted paramedics 2,464 hours or 28 percent of the time. Similar statistics were posted in 2004.

This year, Bay Pines is diverting about 7 percent of the time, about 500 hours so far.

Haley’s diversion numbers have not improved in recent years, though it also has expanded its emergency care and hired three “bed czars.”

Meanwhile, the number of patients treated at both hospitals is on the rise.

“It’s like putting your finger in a dike, actually,” said Dr. Edward Cutolo, Haley’s chief of staff.

Bay Pines treated 49,800 patients in 2000 and tallied 516,000 outpatient visits. In 2006, the numbers increased to 95,000 and 1.1 million.

“It doesn’t seem right that a veterans hospital can ever be filled up,” said Dick Shockey, 77, an Army veteran who was turned away from Bay Pines three years ago. “But veterans end up with a big surprise.”

The problem is not specific to VA hospitals.

About 36 percent of all hospitals reported going on diversion, a survey by the American Hospital Association revealed.

“It’s a crisis across America, not just the VA,” said Michael O’Rourke, assistant director of veterans health policy at the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “There’s a shortage of emergency room physicians, and there’s a shortage of beds, and there’s a shortage of nursing staff.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Scandal: Tampa Bay VA hospitals forced to turn away patients

Senator Biden Opposes Mukasey Nomination, Calls for End to Bush’s Waterboard Torture Policy

Senator Biden Issues Statement on Mukasey Nomination Following Refusal to Unequivocally State that Waterboarding is Torture. Senator Biden to Oppose Mukasey Nomination, and Biden Reiterates Call on Colleagues to Support his Legislation Banning Waterboarding and Other Forms of Torture.

October 30, 2007, Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) issued the following statement today after Judge Michael Mukasey responded to a request for clarification regarding his evasive testimony on waterboarding:
 
“I am disappointed by Judge Mukasey’s response.  He was asked a direct question on the specifics of waterboarding and he refused to unequivocally state that this practice is torture.  For this reason, I shall oppose his nomination to be the United States Attorney General.
 
“Waterboarding is by any standard, torture.  I called on my colleagues today to support legislation I introduced this summer banning waterboarding and other forms of torture.  When we use torture or other cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees, we diminish our ability to argue that the same techniques should not be used against our own troops.  We need to send a clear message that torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees is unacceptable and is not permitted by U.S. law.  Period.  We cannot have a United States Attorney General who will equivocate and dissemble on this matter.  Too much is at stake.”

###

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Senator Biden Opposes Mukasey Nomination, Calls for End to Bush’s Waterboard Torture Policy

VA Watchdog: Five Reasons to Oppose Peake to Lead VA

November 1, 2007 – I’m going to make this short and sweet. Dr. James Peake (Lt. Gen. Ret.) should NOT be confirmed as the new VA Secretary.  Just like the candied-apples that get handed out at Halloween, we have a pretty, sweet exterior…but, inside we have a rotten apple.

Dr. Peake is being sold to the American people as a doctor and decorated military veteran.  While he is both, these do not qualify him to be VA Secretary.  Listed below are five reasons Dr. Peake should NOT be confirmed.

1.  Peake has no first-hand experience with the VA system.  He is an outsider who will have to spend the next year trying to get up to speed.  Veterans can’t afford such an unqualified person at the helm of the VA.

2.  Peake, while Surgeon General of the Army (2000-2004), spoke often of his “efficiency” and his “financial objectives.”  Basically, Peake is a number-crunching budget-slasher.  VA needs someone to lobby for adequate funding…not someone who wrote this about his job at the Army:  “…our duty to be responsible stewards of the taxpayers’ resources.”

3.  Peake’s “financial objectives” mentioned above were well-realized as budgets for Walter Reed were kept low and jobs were outsourced.  We saw what happened at Walter Reed.  And, the problems there were known in 2004 as VA and DoD talked with patients about the problems.  Those reports were buried.  Peake cannot hide from these facts.

4.  Peake, as he mentioned in his acceptance address, will push for full implementation of the Dole-Shalala Commission recommendations.  If the Dole-Shalala legislation is passed, the VA disability compensation system will be changed forever.  As Randy Reese of the DAV wrote, “At any point in time, disabled veterans would receive three types of variable payments. This is a recipe for abandoning the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  And, it is a recipe to move backward and include all veterans in this unfair system.

5.  Peake is currently chief medical director and chief operating officer of QTC Management Inc., which provides contract medical exams for the VA and the military.  The Chairman of the QTC board is former VA Secretary Anthony Principi.  QTC has garnered a multi-year VA contract that could be worth well over a billion dollars.  This is as close as you can get to a conflict of interest.  It’s just another example of the good ol’ boy revolving door in Washington.  In simple terms:  Those that have, get.

I encourage all veterans to pass this information along and to contact Members of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and strongly urge that Dr. James Peake NOT be confirmed as Secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Contact the Senate Committee here: http://www.veterans.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?pageid=1

Larry Scott 

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on VA Watchdog: Five Reasons to Oppose Peake to Lead VA

Must Watch CNN News Clip: 1.8 Million Uninsured Veterans

CNN’s Jack Cafferty: 1.8 million veterans without healthcare ‘a national embarrassment’

Filed by Mike Aivaz and Jason Rhyne, Raw Story

October 31, 2001 – CNN’s Jack Cafferty says it’s a “national embarrassment” that US military veterans are among the 47 million Americans that do not have health insurance.

Cafferty cited new research conducted at Harvard Medical School indicating that 1.8 million veterans were uninsured in 2004, a number that’s climbed by 290,000 since 2000 estimates. The same study found an additional 3.8 million people, all members of veteran households, also lacked coverage.

“Turns out most uninsured veterans are in the middle class and thus are ineligible for VA care because of their incomes,” said Cafferty. “They’re too high. Others can’t afford to make the co-payments, and some just simply lack veterans facilities in their communities.”

The lead researcher on the study, Dr. David Himmelstein, of Cambridge Health Alliance, said in a press release that the problem was on the rise — and pointed to universal health care as a possible fix.

“The number of uninsured vets has skyrocketed since 2000, and eligibility has been cut, barring hundreds of thousands of veterans from care,” said Himmelstein. “We need a solution that works for veterans, their families, and all Americans — single payer national health insurance.”

Cafferty said that even one uninsured American veteran was nothing short of a disgrace.

“That, in this humble fellow’s opinion, is a national embarrassment,” he said. “That we have any veterans in this country unable to get health care because they don’t have the money, that’s wrong.”

At the end of the segment, Cafferty read an email from one North Carolina veteran denied coverage.

“I am a Vietnam era vet and I tried to get VA medical and was told that my income was too high. I then asked to be covered if I took the co-pay and was told that they were not accepting any new candidates,” said the ex-military man. “That’s about as close to ‘get lost, vet’ as you can get.”

“That’s pretty sad stuff,” Cafferty concluded.

The following video is from CNN’s Cafferty File, broadcast on October 31, 2007: http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=8140

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Must Watch CNN News Clip: 1.8 Million Uninsured Veterans

How the U.S. Is Failing Its War Veterans

March 5, 2007 issue – After returning from Iraq in late 2005, Jonathan Schulze spent every day struggling not to fall apart. When a Department of Veterans Affairs clinic turned him away last month, he lost the battle. The 25-year-old Marine from Stewart, Minn., had told his parents that 16 men in his unit had died in two days of battle in Ramadi. At home, he was drinking hard to stave off the nightmares. Though he managed to get a job as a roofer, he was suffering flashbacks and panic attacks so intense that he couldn’t concentrate on his work. Sometimes, he heard in his mind the haunting chants of the muezzin—the Muslim call to prayer that he’d heard many times in Iraq. Again and again, he’d relive the moments he was in a Humvee, manning the machine gun, but helpless to save his fellow Marines. “He’d be seeing them in his own mind, standing in front of him,” says his stepmother, Marianne.

Schulze, who earned two Purple Hearts for wounds sustained in Iraq, was initially reluctant to turn to the VA. Raised among fighters—Schulze’s father served in Vietnam and over the years his older brother and six stepbrothers all enlisted in the military—Jonathan might have felt asking for help didn’t befit a Marine.

But when the panic attacks got to be too much, he started showing up at the VA emergency room, where doctors recommended he try group therapy. He resisted; he didn’t think hearing other veterans’ depressing problems would help solve his own. Then, early last month, after more than a year of anxiety, he finally decided to admit himself to an inpatient program. Schulze packed a bag on Jan. 11 and drove with his family to the VA center in St. Cloud, about 70 miles away. The Schulzes were ushered into the mental-health-care unit and an intake worker sat down at a computer across from them. “She started typing,” Marianne says. “She asked, ‘Do you feel suicidal?’ and Jonathan said, ‘Yes, I feel suicidal’.” The woman kept typing, seemingly unconcerned. Marianne was livid. “He’s an Iraqi veteran!” she snapped. “Listen to him!” The woman made a phone call, then told him no one was available that day to screen him for hospitalization. Jonathan could come back tomorrow or call the counselor for a screening on the phone.

When he did call the following day, the response from the clinic was even more disheartening: the center was full. Schulze would be No. 26 on the waiting list. He was encouraged to call back periodically over the next two weeks in case there was a cancellation. Marianne was listening in on the conversation from the dining room. She watched Jonathan, slumped on the couch, as he talked to the doctor. “I heard him say the same thing: I’m suicidal, I feel lost, I feel hopelessness,” she says. Four days later Schulze got drunk, wrapped an electrical cord around a basement beam in his home and hanged himself. A friend he telephoned while tying the noose called the police, but by the time officers broke down the door, Schulze was dead.

How well do we care for our wounded and impaired when they come home? For a country amid what President Bush calls a “long war,” the question has profound moral implications. We send young Americans to the world’s most unruly places to execute our national policies. About 50,000 service members so far have been banged up or burned, suffered disease, lost limbs or sacrificed something less tangible inside them. Schulze is an extreme example but not an isolated one, and such stories are raising concerns that the country is failing to meet its most basic obligations to those who fight our wars.

The question of after-action care also has strategic consequences. Iraq marks the first drawn-out campaign we’ve fought with an all-volunteer military. In practice, that means far fewer Americans are taking part in this war (12 percent of the total population participated in World War II, 2 percent in Vietnam and less than half of 1 percent in Iraq and Afghanistan). Already, the war has made it harder for the military to recruit new soldiers and more expensive to retain the ones it has. If we fall down in the attention we provide them, who’s to say volunteers will continue coming forward?

The issue of veterans’ care jumped into the headlines last week when The Washington Post published a series about Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The stories revealed decay and mismanagement at the hospital, and provoked shock and concern among politicians in both parties. “The doctors were fantastic,” a Walter Reed patient, 21-year-old Marissa Strock, tells NEWSWEEK. “But some of the nurses and other staffers here have been a nightmare.” Strock suffered multiple injuries, including broken bones, a lacerated liver and severely bruised lungs, when her Humvee rolled over an improvised explosive device on Nov. 24, 2005. She later had both her legs amputated. “I think a big part of [Walter Reed’s problems] is they just don’t have enough people to adequately handle all the wounded troops coming in here every day,” she says. (Walter Reed did not respond to requests for comment about Strock’s case.) The Pentagon responded swiftly to the Post series. It vowed to investigate what went wrong and immediately sent a repair crew to repaint and fix the damage to the aging buildings.

The revelations were especially shocking because Walter Reed is one of the country’s most prestigious military hospitals, often visited by prominent politicians, including the president. But it is just one part of a vast network of hospitals and clinics that serve wounded soldiers and veterans throughout the country. A NEWSWEEK investigation focused not on one facility but on the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, a 235,000-person bureaucracy that provides medical care to a much larger number of servicemen and women from the time they’re released from the military, and doles out their disability payments. Our reporting paints a grim portrait of an overloaded bureaucracy cluttered with red tape; veterans having to wait weeks or months for mental-health care and other appointments; families sliding into debt as VA case managers study disability claims over many months, and the seriously wounded requiring help from outside experts just to understand the VA’s arcane system of rights and benefits. “In no way do I diminish the fact that there are veterans out there who are coming in who require treatment and maybe are not getting the treatment they need,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto tells NEWSWEEK. “It’s real and it exists.”

The system’s shortcomings are certainly not deliberate; no organization is perfect. Some of the VA’s hospitals have been cited as among the best in the country, and even in extreme cases, the picture is seldom black-and-white. Before he killed himself, Schulze was seen by the VA 46 times, VA Secretary James Nicholson told Congress this month. (He did not elaborate on what care Schulze received.)

Yet, as the number of veterans continues to grow, critics worry the VA is in a state of denial. In a broad sense, the situation at the VA seems to mirror the overall lack of planning for the war. “We know the VA doesn’t have the capacity to process a large number of disability claims at the same time,” says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard public-finance professor and former Clinton administration Commerce Department official. Last month Bilmes released a 34-page study on the long-term cost of caring for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. She projects that at least 700,000 veterans from the global war on terror (GWOT) will flood the system in the coming years.

As it is, for some veterans the wait can be agonizing. Patrick Feges was on hold for 17 months until his first disability check from the VA came through. An Eagle Scout from Sugar Land, Texas, Feges enlisted in 2003 and found himself in Ramadi a year later. In October 2004, a mortar exploded on his base about 50 yards from him, spraying him with shrapnel, slicing his intestines and severing a major artery. Feges lost consciousness and was flown to Walter Reed, where he underwent surgery. Long scars trail down his legs and midsection. At the hospital a fellow Texan came to visit: President Bush stood by his bed and chatted with him.

Feges is a polite 22-year-old with a military manner. He addresses strangers by last name and an honorific, even when prodded to drop the formality. “I was brought up right, sir,” he explains. But his voice rises slightly when he describes his ordeal with the VA. A case officer in Houston processed Feges’s request for disability in September 2005, then lost his application. Feges was summoned to repeated medical evaluations at the Houston center, but a year later he was still waiting for a check. By then, Feges had been accepted to culinary school in Austin and did not want to put off his studies. His mother, an elementary-school teacher, took a second job at a local McDonald’s to help support him.

For discharged service members, the VA serves two functions: it provides medical care for service-related conditions at its clinics and hospitals across the country, and it reviews claims for disability benefits—chiefly, the monthly payments wounded veterans get for the rest of their lives. The review process can be complicated. It requires veterans to prove, through documents and sometimes through the testimony of fellow soldiers, that their afflictions are a result of their time in the military. Feges listed on his application all the ways he’d been affected by the wounds: he’d lost mobility in his ankles and knees, he suffered regular stomach cramps from the intestinal wound, he lost sensation in his hands and legs, he had trouble standing for long periods. NEWSWEEK presented the VA with the names and details of the veterans whose stories are told here, but a spokesman for the agency declined to comment on individual cases, citing doctor-patient confidentiality. Speaking generally, Dr. Michael Kussman, the VA’s acting under secretary for health, tells NEWSWEEK that the department is trying to reach veterans earlier, as they approach their date of discharge, and that he does not believe Iraq and Afghanistan are straining resources severely. “The impact on the VA so far has been relatively small,” Kussman says. “It has not kicked the system over in our budget and in our ability to absorb it.”

Still, a jump in disability claims in recent years has created a bottleneck. Daniel Cooper, the VA’s under secretary for benefits, confirmed his department was coping with a backlog of 400,000 applications and appeals; 75 percent of them were still within a “reasonable” reviewing time frame, he says. Yet, most of those claims were filed by veterans of previous wars (a veteran can file or appeal a claim even decades after discharge). As more servicemen and women return from Iraq, the backlog is likely to increase. Cooper says the average waiting time for a benefits claim is about six months. NEWSWEEK turned up a number of veterans who’d waited longer. Keri Christensen, a National Guard veteran and a mother of two, says the VA in Chicago took 10 months to process her application. Rory Dunn, who nearly died in an IED attack outside Fallujah, says his application was delayed because, among other things, the VA mixed up his file with that of a Korean War veteran.

Feges’s claim was finally approved last month: after NEWSWEEK and the advocacy group Veterans for America began looking into his case, he got a call from a VA official in Waco, Texas, with the news that his money would come through. Last week he received back pay to the date of his application.

The compensation is not huge. A veteran with a disability rating of 100 percent gets about $2,400 a month—more if he or she has children. A 50 percent rating brings in around $700 a month. But for many returning servicemen burdened with wounds, it is, initially at least, their sole income. “When I started school, that’s when it became really hard not to have that money,” says Feges.

One reason to worry about a crush of new vets at the VA has to do with the proportion of wounded to dead Americans in Iraq. Though we tend to mark the grim timeline of the war by counting fatalities, what really distinguishes this conflict is how many soldiers don’t die, but suffer appalling injuries. In Vietnam and Korea, about three Americans were wounded for every one who died. The ratio in WWII was nearly 2-1. In Iraq, 16 soldiers are wounded or get sick for every one who dies. The yawning ratio marks progress: better body armor and helmets are shielding more soldiers from fatal wounds. And advanced emergency care is keeping more of the wounded alive. The VA’s Kussman says that soldiers who survive the first few minutes after an explosion have a 98 percent chance of surviving altogether. But that means an increased burden on the VA’s health-care system.

Two such survivors are Albert and Connie Ross. Albert lost a leg when a rocket-propelled grenade landed close to him in August 2004 while he was on patrol in Baghdad. Connie lived through a 2004 suicide bombing in Mosul but suffered multiple fractures and burns. When the two met in a hallway at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, Connie thought she noticed a certain swagger in Albert’s walk. “He had this weird dip in his walk, so I asked him, ‘Why are you pimp-walking in a hospital?’ And he said: ‘I’m not pimp-walking, I’m an amputee.’ I was so embarrassed.” The two married earlier this year and are expecting a child.

Though he’s been in the VA system for more than two years now, Albert still doesn’t have a primary-care doctor. Without one, getting appointments with specialists can be difficult. “You’re supposed to be assigned one right away,” says Albert, who now lives in San Antonio. “I’m not frustrated so much as worried—worried if and when something does go wrong, something will happen with one of my legs … They [primary-care doctors] are the ones who have to fill out a work-order form; it’s impossible to do anything without them.”

One thing Albert desperately wants to do: get a new prosthetic. He’s one of the early African-American amputees of the war. But the fake limb he’s been given matches the skin tone of a Caucasian. It so embarrasses Albert that he always wears a sock over it—even if he’s in sandals. “He’s very self-conscious about it,” says Connie. “It really bothers him.”

Albert’s situation is probably atypical. The VA says a huge majority of veterans get primary-care doctors within 30 days. But people inside the system do concede there’s a shortage of mental-health workers at many of the VA’s hospitals and clinics across the country. And Schulze is not the only veteran to commit suicide after being turned away. In a similar case in 2004, the VA twice neglected to treat Iraq veteran Jeffrey Lucey for posttraumatic stress disorder (the second time because he was told alcoholics must dry out before being accepted to an inpatient program). By the time a VA counselor tracked down a bed in a New York facility with a built-in detox program, Lucey had already hanged himself. “The system doesn’t treat mental health with the same urgency it treats general health care,” says a senior VA manager who did not want to be named talking about shortcomings in the agency.

Even when veterans get to the right doctors, understanding how to leverage what they need from the system can be mind-bending. Tonia Sargent, whose husband, Kenneth, nearly died in a sniper attack in Najaf in 2004, says no one ever sat her down and explained the benefits and how to access them. Her husband’s brain injury made him often incapable of understanding his own care. Key decisions fell to her alone. It’s a “don’t ask, don’t tell system,” she says.

Kenneth is a Marine master sergeant who’d been in the Corps for nearly 18 years. He was on his second tour in Iraq when a sniper bullet ricocheted off the metal hatch on his vehicle and hit him directly below the right eye, grazing the front of his brain and exiting near his left ear. Among other things, he was diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, which has become the signature wound of the Iraq war. Tonia had to fight the Marine Corps to keep him from being discharged, figuring he’d get better medical care if he remained in active service. But some of his treatment has been outsourced to the VA.

One of the tricks she learned early on was to demand photocopies of her husband’s records—every exam, every X-ray, every diagnosis—and personally carry the file from appointment to appointment. “I don’t know if there is a more formal protocol for transferring documents, but I know that what I brought … was definitely put to use.” When Sargent was transferred to the VA’s lauded Polytrauma Center in Palo Alto, Calif., doctors there encouraged her to go home to Camp Pendleton near San Diego and treat his stay at the hospital as if it was a deployment. “After two weeks, they asked me how long I was planning to stay with my husband,” she says. “They said it was his rehab, not mine. But I needed to learn how to care for him, and he suffered from extreme anxiety without me.” She pushed back, staying in Palo Alto until he completed his care.

How can the system improve? Bilmes, who authored the Harvard study, proposes at least one drastic change—automatically accepting all disability claims and auditing them after payments have begun. (The VA says that would be an irresponsible use of taxpayer money.) Other critics have focused on raising the VA’s budget, which has been proposed at $87 billion for 2008. More money could go toward hiring more claims officers and more doctors, easing the burden now and preparing the VA for the end of the Iraq war, when soldiers return home en masse.

But veterans’ support groups and even some former and current VA insiders believe there’s a reluctance in the Bush administration to deal openly with the long-term costs of the war. (All told, Bilmes projects it could cost as much as $600 billion to care for GWOT veterans over the course of their lifetimes.) That reluctance, they say, trickles down to the VA, where top managers are politically appointed. Secretary Jim Nicholson, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who was chosen by Bush in 2005, tends to be the focus of this criticism.

The senior VA manager who did not want to be named criticizing superiors told NEWSWEEK: “He’s a political appointee and he needs to respond to the White House’s direction.” Steve Robinson of Veterans for America levels the accusation more directly. “Why doesn’t the VA have a projection of casualties for the wars? Because it would be a political bombshell for Nicholson to estimate so many casualties.” The VA denies political considerations are involved in its budgeting or planning. Nicholson declined to be interviewed but Matt Burns, a spokesman for the VA, called Robinson’s comments “nonsensical and inflammatory,” adding: “The VA, in its budgeting process, carefully prepares for future costs so that we can continue to deliver the quality health care and myriad benefits veterans have earned.”

Fratto, the White House deputy press secretary, says money is not the problem. He points out the VA has had a hard time filling positions in some remote parts of the country. “You need to find people who are trained in PTSD and other disorders that are affecting veterans and find those who are willing to go to places where they are needed.”

As is often the case in America when government institutions falter, however, community groups are already stepping into the void. Veterans of Foreign Wars has advocates helping vets negotiate the VA bureaucracy, much the way health facilitators in the private sector help consumers get the most from their health insurance. Robinson, of Veterans for America, has pulled together teams of volunteers—physicians, psychologists, lawyers—who give vets free services when the local VA branch falls down. At his office recently, he was coordinating a traumatic-brain-injury screening with a private doctor for a veteran who’d been denied access to VA care. The fact that Americans are coming forward doesn’t absolve the VA of its obligation to provide first-rate care for veterans. Most of the wounded’s problems just can’t be solved by private citizens and groups, no matter how well meaning. But it does serve to remind us that we should take better care of veterans wounded in the line of duty as they make their way home, and try to remake their lives.

With Jamie Reno, Eve Conant, John Barry, Richard Wolffe, Karen Springen, Jonathan Mummolo and Ty Brickhouse

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on How the U.S. Is Failing Its War Veterans